What we know so far: OpenAI is working more closely with Samsung on chip development while also deploying ChatGPT within the South Korean company, adding another major technology partner as it builds out its AI infrastructure. Harrison Kim, general manager of OpenAI Korea, pointed to the companies’ work on chip manufacturing and research as a key part of their expanding relationship.

“One of the areas where we have made the most progress and gained the most recognition with Samsung Electronics is our joint production and research on the next-generation chips we are developing,” Kim said at a press conference in Seoul. Kim did not provide details on the chips or explain Samsung’s role.

Samsung said it could not confirm information related to customers.

The work comes after OpenAI’s June announcement of Jalapeno, its first custom AI chip. OpenAI designed the chip with Broadcom for AI inference, and TSMC is set to manufacture it.

OpenAI’s interest in Samsung also reflects memory’s growing importance in AI systems. Large models need substantial memory capacity and bandwidth to run quickly, particularly in data centers serving large numbers of users. Kim said demand for advanced memory will continue to rise as AI computing becomes faster and more complex.

Samsung and SK Hynix signed letters of intent last year to supply memory chips for OpenAI’s Stargate data center project. Kim said working with South Korean semiconductor suppliers is a priority for OpenAI’s local office.

Samsung is also one of OpenAI’s biggest enterprise users. Kim said it was “one of the largest-scale deployments of ChatGPT globally,” with employees in Korea and other markets using the tool for research and development, marketing, and sales.

The company has been opening access to several generative AI products internally. In June, Samsung said employees in its Device eXperience division, which oversees phones, televisions, and home appliances, would be allowed to use ChatGPT, Google’s Gemini, and Anthropic’s Claude for work.

OpenAI said adoption among South Korean businesses has increased sharply. The number of ChatGPT Enterprise users at companies and institutions in the country was about 28 times higher at the end of August than a year earlier. It did not disclose the total number of users.

The company said businesses are increasingly using AI across departments, including legal, sales, finance, marketing, and operations, instead of limiting the technology to individual assignments.

South Korea had the highest number of paying ChatGPT subscribers outside the United States as of late last year, OpenAI said.

OpenAI expects product use to grow now that GPT-6 Astra has launched. The company said the model offers better performance in computer use, professional work, science, coding, and cybersecurity.

Multiple social media posts from the US President suggested renaming New Mexico to “New America,” and congressional representatives have preemptively asked Apple and Google not to rename the state.

The United States President has begun using the names on the map as some kind of negotiating tactic in ongoing trade wars he started. After executive orders changed The Gulf of Mexico and Lake Ontario in the GNIS database, Apple Maps reflected that change.

According to a report from The Washington Post, Democratic congressional representatives from New Mexico have asked Apple and Google to not comply if another name change is attempted. The requests have been made after multiple social media posts from the President, but no executive order or official plans have been made.

The request appears to be as performative as the President’s social media posts, because Apple and Google have no say in the matter. The Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) is a database run by the federal government, which is affected by executive orders, and what the companies draw from for local place names.

In using the database, Apple and Google must use the names or risk being barred from access to the system. They can file formal complaints, but that’s about it.

Apple Maps didn’t update Lake Ontario until GNIS was updated and pushed the change to their backend. Google, however, made the change to Google Maps immediately following the executive order being signed.

If the congressional representatives of New Mexico want something done, they could raise the concern in Washington and utilize the powers Congress has at its disposal. Instead, they’ve pointlessly written a letter to companies that have no horse in the race.

The United States President doesn’t have the power to change the name of a state, even with executive order. While he may attempt some loophole, like forcing a map name change without an official name change, no move has been made yet.

In this particular case, these whims may just be more hot air to distract from the numerous issues plaguing the administration. All I would ask of these members of Congress is this: focus on solving the problem instead of going after those that have no control over the problem.

A physical SIM is a small removable card. An eSIM is a chip built into the phone that can’t be removed. The real difference isn’t security. It’s how easily you can switch phones or carriers.

More phones sell as eSIM-only now, and more people travel with a phone that needs a local SIM for a few weeks at a time. Both trends make this comparison worth understanding before you buy a phone or switch carriers.

The short version: an eSIM and a physical SIM do the same basic job. Both connect your phone to a carrier’s network. They just get set up and swapped differently, and the differences matter more in specific situations, like switching carriers to save money, than they do in daily use.

Quick Take

What Each One Actually Is

A physical SIM card is a small removable chip. You insert it into a tray on the side of the phone. It stores your phone number and account details, and carriers mail it to you or hand it over in a store. Move it to a different phone, and your service moves with it.

An eSIM does the same job, but it’s built into the phone itself. It can’t be removed. Instead of inserting a card, your carrier sends the account details to the phone digitally, a process GSMA (the industry body that sets the eSIM standard) calls remote provisioning. That’s also why eSIM technology fits into devices too small for a SIM tray, like some smartwatches.

One thing that doesn’t change either way: your phone’s IMEI number identifies the device itself, separate from whichever SIM or eSIM you’re using. Most current phones support one type or the other, and many support both. Which one your specific phone has, or needs, is worth confirming before you buy or switch.

eSIM vs. Physical SIM at a Glance

Here’s how the two compare on the things that actually affect daily use.

None of these differences make one option flatly better. They just show up in different situations, which is the point of checking the sections below against your own habits. If you swap phones often, the top row matters most. If you travel a lot, the second row does.

How It Works in Practice

Switching to a new phone

With a physical SIM, you take it out of the old phone and put it in the new one. That’s the whole process. With eSIM, Apple’s own instructions list several ways to move a number to a new iPhone, including a direct transfer between phones, scanning a carrier QR code, or activating through the carrier’s app. None of these take long, but they all take more steps than pulling out a card.

Switching carriers

Physical SIM switches usually mean waiting for a card in the mail or visiting a store. eSIM switches are typically faster. Most carriers have an app that installs the new network profile digitally, often finishing in minutes rather than days. Either way, switching only works if your phone itself isn’t locked to your old carrier. If it is, you’ll need to unlock the phone first before a new SIM or eSIM profile will connect.

Running two phone numbers on one phone

This used to require a phone with two physical SIM trays, which most phones don’t have. eSIM changed that. Google’s Pixel phones, for example, support running one physical SIM alongside one eSIM, or two eSIMs at once, with Google specifically pointing to keeping a business number and a personal number on the same device as a real use case.

Traveling internationally

An eSIM lets you add a local carrier’s plan before or right after you land, without hunting for a SIM card shop. A physical SIM means either buying one on arrival or setting up international roaming with your home carrier, which usually costs more.

Common Misconceptions

“eSIM is just more secure”

This is half true. An eSIM can’t be physically pulled out of a stolen phone, and it’s harder to clone than a physical card. But the type of fraud most people actually worry about, someone tricking your carrier into moving your number to a different device, works about the same either way. As NordVPN’s security comparison puts it, SIM-swap fraud isn’t meaningfully less common with eSIM. The security difference is real, but narrower than the marketing suggests.

“eSIM means the phone has no SIM card slot at all”

Not necessarily. Most Android phones that support eSIM still have a physical SIM tray too, so you can choose either or use both. The clear exception is recent US iPhone models, where Apple’s US versions ship eSIM-only with no tray at all, while the same phones sold outside the US keep one. Check your specific phone and region rather than assuming.

“You can’t have a backup SIM with eSIM”

You can. It’s just less convenient. A backup physical SIM can move to any spare phone in seconds. A backup eSIM profile needs the same activation process as the original, which usually needs an internet connection and cooperation from the carrier.

Limitations and Edge Cases

eSIM carrier support keeps growing, but it’s still uneven. Some MVNOs (smaller carriers that lease network access from the big ones) and some countries don’t support eSIM activation yet. This is separate from whether the phone’s network bands match your carrier, which matters regardless of SIM type. Check both with your specific carrier before assuming either will work.

Handing your connectivity to someone else is harder with eSIM. Popping a physical SIM into a family member’s phone during an emergency, or into a cheap backup phone while yours is repaired, is simple. Doing the same with an eSIM means going through carrier activation again, which isn’t always fast.

eSIM activation generally needs an internet connection, whether wifi or another device’s data. That’s a real problem if your phone is lost or dead and you’re trying to activate a replacement with no other way online.

Older phones without eSIM hardware are simply excluded from any carrier or plan that’s gone eSIM-only. If you’re buying a phone specifically to get the lowest cost on an older model, confirm it actually supports eSIM before assuming a factory-unlocked phone purchase will work with an eSIM-only plan.

Key Takeaways

FAQ

from the hi-we’re-from-the-‘how-high’-department dept

There are multiple things this administration is incapable of doing: winning wars, curbing inflation, not acting like Nazis, wearing shoes that fit them, etc. But if there’s one thing it’s most known for, it’s the unwillingness to take a loss and move on.

That’s why the DOJ is still trying to imprison/jettison into a war-torn African nation its first spectacular failure: Kilmar Abrego-Garcia. And that’s why — multiple attempts and several million dollars later — Trump is still pretending what happened to the Lincoln Reflecting Pool were acts of vandalism, rather than the shoddy work of his preferred contractors. Those facts are on the permanent record, supplied by his own DOJ and his handpicked US Attorney (and former Fox News personality, natch) Jeanine Pirro.

The DOJ claimed Doug Burgum’s Interior Department lied to it when it moved to dismiss federal vandalism charges against former Olympian David Hearn. To his credit(?), Burgum has been nothing if not consistent. Burgum continued to spread the lies. And Trump has continued to double-down on his bogus “vandals” claims since the DOJ dropped the charges.

The continuing problems aren’t limited to Burgum’s and Trump’s constant lies. The main problem for David Hearn is that the DOJ can always try to run him through the court system again. While the DOJ made it clear any damage was due to poor workmanship, it refused to dismiss the charges with prejudice — something that would have prevented the DOJ from re-charging Hearn in response to White House pressure and/or a series of hirings/firings meant to replace Pirro with someone more sycophantic.

While the DOJ may have an infinite amount of time and money to blow on stroking off Trump’s revenge fantasies, its lawyers have been learning repeatedly that federal judges have a finite amount of patience for their constant bullshit.

Hearn’s legal team has refused to let this case go simply because the DOJ has refused to let this case go. It has asked the court to bring the DOJ back to explain why it won’t dismiss the charges with prejudice, even after publicly admitting any alleged “vandalism” was simply the end result of shitty pool repair work.

The DOJ still refuses to take this step, which has naturally resulted in DOJ lawyers being berated by yet another exasperated federal judge:

Superior Court Judge Todd Edelman asked assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Spence how he was supposed to look at the president’s statements about David Hearn, one of his attorneys and U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro as “anything other than [Trump] pressuring your office, your boss and the three of you to charge Mr. Hearn, recharge Mr. Hearn with what you had decided to be a meritless prosecution.” 

“Isn’t this a unique threat of meritless re-prosecution?” Edelman said. 

Advertisement

You’ll notice it’s US Attorney Michael Spence now handling this case, since Pirro has been sidelined (but not officially fired) for refusing to engage in a malicious prosecution on Trump’s behalf. In return for Pirro momentarily demonstrating better judgment and displaying some respect for her office, Trump has repeatedly maligned her in public comments and Truth Social posts.

That leaves Spence with nothing but the dirtiest of dirty work — ensuring the Hearn prosecution remains on life support until Oval Office pressure forces him to move forward with “meritless re-prosecution,” to quote Judge Edelman.

Spence had nowhere to go. Having been painted into the corner by the administration that currently employs him, all he could do was offer up a weak non-rebuttal that kind of throws Trump under the Truth Social bus he’s driving, while being as noncommittal as possible about the future of the Hearn prosecution:

Spence replied only that Trump’s statements “speak for themselves,” while also arguing it was premature to discuss that hypothetical notion because no further grand jury action had happened.

Bro, this discussion isn’t “premature.” Rights are there to be protected, rather than just vindicated after the fact. The court isn’t obligated to allow the DOJ to engage in a malicious re-prosecution before it can draw inferences from the administration’s actions and statements. Courts aren’t just there to clean up the messes the other branches make. They can also block the government from moving ahead with planned rights violations.

US Attorney Spence is saying as little as he can in hopes of saving a job that’s probably not worth having. The future will only hold worse things for anyone who thinks it’s possible to appease both Trump and an apparently never-ending series of annoyed federal judges. 30 seconds of boiler plate editing is all it would take to end the Hearn saga for good. But Spence — and the cowards who work with him — will never close this case because Trump won’t be happy until he’s put someone — anyone! — in jail for botching a job he’d spent months bragging about.

Filed Under: asshats, david hearn, doi, doj, doug burgum, interior department, jeanine pirro, malicious prosecution, refelecting pool, trump administration

Companies: atlantic industrial coatings, greenwater solutions

Anthropic has published its most detailed account of Claude misuse, laying out how people tried to use its models for harm. The company said it detected and shut down these operations. They ran across cyberattacks, state surveillance, influence campaigns, conventional weapons work and biological research.

It set out the cases in a threat intelligence report released on 10 September. The report covers activity its Threat Intelligence team disrupted between December 2025 and August 2026.

The report spans seven harm areas. They are cyber operations, influence operations, surveillance, conventional weapons development, biological misuse, scams and fraud, and illicit distillation. Anthropic said the misuse involved its Claude Haiku, Sonnet and Opus models.

None of the cases involved its Fable or Mythos-class models, it added, with the exception of one distillation case. In each instance the company said it banned the accounts and strengthened its safeguards. It also shared intelligence with authorities and industry partners where appropriate.

Cheaper attacks, not new ones

The largest section covers cyber operations. Its central claim is that AI has narrowed the gap between well-resourced state hackers and lone operators. Anthropic pointed to a hacktivist using stolen API keys, financially motivated individuals, and a state espionage operator. Each ran multi-victim campaigns.

A year earlier, it said, that work would have required teams of skilled people. The company reported breaches completed in two to three hours, with dozens of victims handled in parallel by single operators.

One case, which Anthropic tracks as GTG-20006, involved a Russian-speaking operator running espionage against Ukrainian and European government targets. Diplomatic and defence organisations were among the targets too.

The company attributed it in line with public reporting on the group known as Midnight Blizzard. It said the actor used AI to check whether security products had flagged their malware, then automatically rebuilt it to slip past detection.

Anthropic traced a separate operation to two people it described as undergraduate students in Hunan, China. It said they ran what it called agent swarms against roughly fifty organisations. Those included a Southeast Asian government agency, from which the actor retrieved citizen records.

Surveillance built by a single consultant

Anthropic said state-aligned actors and commercial spyware vendors used Claude to build surveillance systems between January and July. The cases spanned China, Iran and West Africa. It presented one as the most striking. A single subscriber used Claude as the engineering workforce for a platform named Lakana 360.

The company assessed the subscriber to be a Bamako-based consultant working with Mali’s state intelligence service.

The system monitored roughly 25 million SIM cards across all three of the country’s mobile operators. Anthropic said it bypassed a legal requirement for a court order before an operator could disclose certain records. It also ran on local models on-premises, so banning the account did not affect the deployed system.

Other surveillance cases named Iranian actors deploying a malicious Firefox extension that harvested users’ identities from social networks. Anthropic also described a religious affairs intelligence unit in China. It said the unit had shrunk from many teams of analysts to a single office. That office now produces thousands of investigations a month with an AI assistant.

In another Chinese case, the company said Claude scored social media posts by political sensitivity and flagged people for what the operators termed control. The report follows earlier TNW coverage of AI turning up in police search tools.

Jacob Klein, who leads threat intelligence at Anthropic, told Axios that AI was making state surveillance cheaper and more efficient. It was not changing who governments target, he said.

“They’re effectively automating parts of the job within the intel apparatus,” he said. He added that the pattern was no longer theoretical. “Authoritarian states are using AI for surveillance, repression and influence operations today,” he told Axios.

A new category: weapons

The report documents what Anthropic described as a new form of misuse. That is the use of Claude to write software for conventional weapons. It detailed six cases, three in China, two in Russia and one in Yemen.

In the Yemen case, the company said a cell in the north of the country ran three weapons programmes. They included a guided rocket, a multi-stage ballistic missile with a stated range goal above 2,000 kilometres, and a set of missile variants that included a hypersonic glide vehicle.

Anthropic said the actors used Claude Code in place of software engineers to develop guidance and control code. It added that they test-fired a guided rocket, a test that appears to have failed.

The Russian cases included freelance actors working on an autonomous kamikaze drone swarm.

Biology, and the judgement calls

Anthropic said it presented five cases of people using its models in ways that could support biological weapons development. It stressed how hard those judgements are to make.

The company withheld the names of the institutions, the countries and the specific biological agents involved. It said the individuals were working scientists, and it did not assert that they intended harm.

In one example from May, it said a request for help writing a grant application involved gain-of-function research on the chikungunya virus. That work was intended to be carried out at a military research institute.

“You are not seeing someone in a comic book kind of way say, ‘Hey, I want to build a biological weapon to kill everybody,’” Klein told The New York Times. “It’s an incredibly nuanced situation.”

On the chikungunya case, he told the paper the company did not know whether the research was meant to be weaponised, but that a military institution doing gain-of-function research was concerning. Anthropic said older models such as Claude Opus 4 were well below the level where they could meaningfully assist such work.

It said it had launched more recent models with stronger safeguards. That shift echoes an earlier report in which the company ran its bioweapon classifiers off during testing. The distillation thread, meanwhile, runs back to White House claims that Moonshot distilled Anthropic’s Fable.

The Chinese distillation cases

The report also expands on illicit distillation. Anthropic defines that as covertly extracting a model’s capabilities to train a rival.

The company said it had identified campaigns from seven China-based labs, all targeting its generally available models rather than Mythos. It named Moonshot AI, which it said silently forwarded customer requests to Claude and displayed the responses as though they came from its own Kimi model.

Over one ten-day period, Anthropic said, Moonshot relayed almost 300,000 requests through a network of 5,380 fraudulent accounts. It attributed more than 23 million exchanges to Moonshot between May and July. The company made similar allegations against DeepSeek, Zhipu, Xiaomi, SenseTime and MiniMax.

Some of the relayed queries exposed sensitive user data, it said, in one instance live credentials tied to a Russian defence agency.

The distillation findings land alongside a US intelligence advisory naming six Chinese firms and Beijing’s rejection of those claims. Anthropic said most of the influence operations it caught drew little or no authentic engagement before it disrupted them. Other platforms have made the same caveat.

Anthropic said it published the report out of an obligation to disclose the misuse, and to give governments and civil society a clearer view of how such threats take shape.

OpenAI has asked members of Congress in recent weeks for clear guidance about whether orchestrating an industry-wide slowdown on frontier AI development would be legal, people close to the company tell WIRED.

Substantive coordination on safety between AI labs may risk running afoul of antitrust law, the people say, which poses a significant obstacle to bringing major tech giants on board with the effort.

Last weekend, OpenAI’s chief scientist, Jakub Pachocki, published a blog post arguing that the best path forward for the AI research world includes “coordinating to slow down future development,” which he thinks will be key to ensuring that self-improving AI systems are safe. In the short term, he expects “voluntary slowdowns to become commonplace until shared safety bars are established.”

But some legal scholars say such an effort could conflict with US antitrust laws. Nicholas Felstead, assistant director of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and a former AI policy fellow at the Center for Law & AI Risk, argued in a March article that a coordinated pause in AI development may amount to companies restricting output, potentially violating the Sherman Antitrust Act. It would depend “entirely on the precise details of any agreement,” Felstead wrote. “But even if most safety collaborations would ultimately survive antitrust scrutiny, legal uncertainty can act as a powerful deterrent.”

OpenAI did not respond to a request for comment ahead of publication.

There are some early signs that Congress is listening. In July, a bipartisan, bicameral group of lawmakers introduced a bill titled “Collaboration on Adversarial Threats and Security Risks Act,” which would explicitly permit AI labs to coordinate on security and safety work without the risk of violating antitrust statutes. The House version was referred to the Judiciary Committee but has yet to be taken up.

Caleb Knapp, director of government affairs at the nonprofit AI Policy Network, which endorsed the bill, says it would create legal channels for AI labs to work together to address safety and security incidents. Knapp adds that Congress has a “growing appetite to get something done” on AI safety but says enacting anything into law may have to wait until after the upcoming midterm elections.

While some AI executives may have genuine concerns about antitrust, another camp of AI leaders argue those worries are just convenient cover to avoid discussing the real reasons that AI developers may be wary about collaborating, which go far beyond potential legal liabilities.

For one, AI is a massive business, and these companies are fiercely competing to capture a slice of the nascent market for frontier models. Some executives share the Trump administration’s view that staying ahead of China in AI is crucial for national security. Perhaps most importantly, different AI developers have vastly different opinions about the best way to develop safe artificial intelligence, and therefore may be reluctant to work with one another on the issue.

“First step is for industry leaders OpenAI and Anthropic to stop feuding and work on a pacing proposal together,” John Schulman, an OpenAI cofounder who is now chief scientist at the rival AI lab Thinking Machines, wrote in a post on X earlier this week. “They’ll cite antitrust, but that’s fake—antitrust prohibits certain agreements, but not from jointly developing a proposal.”

Long-simmering fears about the race among AI companies to build and release ever more powerful models erupted into the national spotlight this summer. This week, former Anthropic and OpenAI researcher Jacob Coxon added to the growing alarm when he issued a stark public warning that AI developers were putting humanity at risk. In recent months, a number of security incidents, including OpenAI’s agents hacking Hugging Face, highlighted how the industry’s safeguards have failed to keep pace with the rising capabilities of models. The succession of events has led many lawmakers to make urgent calls for AI regulation.

This is an edition of Maxwell Zeff’s Model Behavior newsletter. Read previous newsletters here.

Founder, CEO, and tireless Nvidia hype man Jensen Huang told attendees at the Goldman Sachs Communacopia + Technology conference on Thursday why his company’s AI domination — and revenues — will continue its record-breaking growth streak through the end of next year.

He can see the future.

There’s been endless hand-wringing over whether Nvidia’s party will end as it faces increasing competition for GPUs and AI chips from all directions: the hyperscalers (Amazon, Microsoft, and Google, each building their own) and the AI labs (Anthropic and OpenAI, which are building their own), as well as from newly public competitor Cerebras and startups such as Etched.

“Most people think Nvidia builds a chip. I mean, you need airplanes to ship what we build,” Huang said, adding that the company continues to battle a perception from its early days. Nvidia invented the GPU, which back then were largely sold to consumers to improve PC gaming. “One GPU now is not $399. It’s $8.5 million dollars. That’s one GPU, all connected with NVLink, 2 million parts, right? 250,000 kilowatts. That’s a GPU, and we ship thousands of them.”

He added that orders for just one product, a computer system that combines 36 Grace CPUs with 72 Blackwell GPUs, is currently experiencing 27% month-to-month sales growth.

Huang didn’t limit his bullish view to current sales though. He took the opportunity to reiterate Nvidia’s revenue outlook for next year — guidance the company provided last month when it reported yet another record-breaking revenue quarter. That’s when he first said revenue could grow by 70% next year.

“I think we could grow 70% year over year. We’re confident about that,” Huang said again on Thursday. Analysts expect the company to end its current fiscal year at about $400 billion in revenue. So 70% growth would mean around $680 billion next year.

Huang explained why he’s confident: His company is so embedded in every area of AI that he believes he can see the future.

“Nvidia runs every model. Every single lab can use us,” the CEO said, mentioning that this includes models from Anthropic, OpenAI, and Google, as well as open-weight offerings. “We are a foundational platform of the AI ecosystem, foundational platform of the AI industry.”

Nvidia’s fingers extend all the way from its suppliers, such as memory chip makers, to data center projects and startups.

“We’re tracking every single gigawatt of land, power, shell around the world. Literally everything on the planet,” he said. (“Shell” refers to the shell of a data center building before it is outfitted with computers).

“I mean, just think about all my partners. How many neoclouds are reporting back to us? How many OEMs are reporting back to us? How many clouds are reporting back to us? How many AI-native companies are reporting back to us? We’re working with everybody, and so we kind of know where everything is,” he said.

That comment led to inevitable questions about Nvidia’s so-called circular deals, in which it invests in companies that turn around and buy its wares. Such schemes famously contributed to the downfall of a previous generation of internet build-out suppliers like Lucent Technologies.

Huang had a simple, albeit cheeky, response. “Well, it’s not circular because we put a little bit of money in, and a lot of money comes back.” He went on to joke, “I look at the spreadsheet, we put in $1 and $100 comes back in. Is that circular? If that is, let’s do more of that.”

Quips aside, he insisted that before any of these companies gets an investment, Nvidia makes sure it has real contracts generating revenue from customers. All told, he said he’s seen $100 billion worth of such contracts, “I’m not taking any risks. … I need a sure thing.”

Time will tell whether Nvidia’s stronghold on AI can really persist long term. If there’s one golden rule of the tech industry, it’s that all big things get disrupted. Right now, even Huang admits that much of AI’s growth is coming from AI-native startups that are raising vast sums and spending most of that cash on their own AI use. As the AI industry matures, expect companies to become more efficient in how they use infrastructure and tokens.

But for now, Nvidia has its finger in every pie and sees another year of plenty in its future.

• The US Army has moved TITAN from prototypes into production
• Palantir received $127 million under the latest TITAN contract award
• Anduril secured $65 million for TITAN hardware and integration work

The US Army has shifted its Tactical Intelligence Targeting Access Node (TITAN) program from prototype status into full production this week.

Palantir Technologies and Anduril Industries together received a combined $192 million award covering the next production phase.