Geoffrey Hinton, the computer scientist widely regarded as the “godfather of AI,” says today’s tech leaders are chasing short-term profits and immediate research breakthroughs while failing to grapple with the long-term consequences of artificial intelligence.

Speaking with Fortune, Hinton criticized the industry’s narrow focus on near-term outcomes.

“For the owners of the companies, what’s driving the research is short-term profits,” he said. “Researchers are interested in solving problems that have their curiosity … it’s not like we start off with the same goal of, what’s the future of humanity going to be?”

Hinton contrasted this pragmatic, market-driven approach with broader existential questions. Elon Musk, for instance, has repeatedly warned that AI could render human labor obsolete, raising the deeper issue of meaning. At the 2024 Viva Technology conference in Paris, Musk asked: “If a computer can do—and the robots can do—everything better than you … does your life have meaning?”

But Hinton argues that most of the industry isn’t asking this type of question at all. Instead, developers are focused on incremental technical puzzles, such as teaching a computer to recognize images, generate convincing videos, or churn out realistic text.

“That’s really what’s driving the research,” Hinton said.

From Google Pioneer to AI Skeptic

Hinton, who shared the 2018 Turing Award for his work on deep learning, helped lay the groundwork for the AI revolution. A decade ago, he sold his company, DNNresearch, to Google and became one of the search giant’s leading AI voices. But in 2023, he resigned his role at Google so he could more freely speak about AI’s dangers, warning that the technology was advancing too quickly to be effectively contained.

He now estimates there is a 10% to 20% chance that AI could wipe out humanity once it achieves superintelligence. His concerns fall into two categories: misuse by bad actors and the inherent risks of the technology itself.

“There’s a big distinction between two different kinds of risk,” he explained. “There’s the risk of bad actors misusing AI, and that’s already here. That’s already happening with things like fake videos and cyberattacks, and may happen very soon with viruses. And that’s very different from the risk of AI itself becoming a bad actor.”

Deepfakes, Fraud, and Cyber Threats

The first category of risk is already surfacing in global finance. Ant International in Singapore recently reported a surge in deepfake-related fraud attempts, with general manager Tianyi Zhang telling Fortune that more than 70% of new account enrollments in some markets turned out to be AI-driven deepfake attempts.

“We’ve identified more than 150 types of deepfake attacks,” Zhang said.

Such threats underscore the urgency of developing safeguards. Hinton has proposed an authentication system for digital media—something akin to a provenance signature—that would allow consumers to verify whether a video, image, or document is genuine. He compared the challenge to the printing press, where printers eventually began adding their names to works to establish authenticity. But, he cautioned, even effective solutions to deepfakes won’t fix the broader existential risks.

The Bigger Threat: AI Itself

The greater danger, Hinton argues, is what happens once AI systems surpass human intelligence. He believes that superintelligent AI will not only outperform humans across all domains but will also seek to preserve itself and expand its control, rendering obsolete the assumption that humans can keep the technology in check.

For Hinton, one way forward might be to embed AI with what he calls a “maternal instinct,” programming systems to sympathize with and nurture weaker beings.

“The only example I can think of where the more intelligent being is controlled by the less intelligent one is a baby controlling a mother,” he said. “And so I think that’s a better model we could practice with superintelligent AI. They will be the mothers, and we will be the babies.”

Hinton’s warnings highlight a deep divide within the tech world: while Musk and others speak about AI in terms of sweeping social transformation, corporate labs push ahead with tools aimed at boosting quarterly earnings. Against this backdrop, Hinton says the industry is locked in a race for market share—not a race to ensure AI’s long-term alignment with humanity.

The world’s most valuable chipmaker is far from giving up its desire to retain China as a key growth market. Nvidia is reportedly putting together a new artificial intelligence (AI) chip designed specifically for China that would be half as powerful as its flagship B300 Blackwell GPU, Reuters reported, citing anonymous sources.

The chip, codenamed B30A, would still deliver more processing power than the H20 GPUs currently permitted for sale in China. Unlike the dual-die design used in the more powerful B300 GPUs, the B30A would have a single-die architecture, though it would keep many of the advanced features of the H20, such as fast data transmission, support for NVLink, and high-bandwidth memory.

The B30A’s development is understood to be separate from another chip that Nvidia is also said to be creating for the Chinese market, according to Reuters.

In a statement, Nvidia noted: “We evaluate a variety of products for our roadmap, so that we can be prepared to compete to the extent that governments allow. Everything we offer is with the full approval of the applicable authorities and designed solely for beneficial commercial use.”

The effort comes at a delicate time. The Trump administration in recent weeks has shown signs of relaxing its restrictions on exports of advanced AI chips to China. However, approvals for the B30A are far from certain, sources told Reuters.

The move underlines Nvidia’s struggle to maintain its presence in China amid intensifying geopolitical rivalry between Washington and Beijing, where advanced AI technology has become a central flashpoint. U.S. policymakers argue that restricting chip exports is critical to safeguard America’s lead in AI and prevent Chinese military applications, while critics warn that too much control could inadvertently push Chinese firms like Huawei to accelerate their own semiconductor breakthroughs, eroding U.S. dominance in the long run.

For Nvidia, the stakes are enormous. China has traditionally accounted for as much as one-fifth of the company’s global sales, making it too big a market to abandon. Industry analysts often liken the company’s position to selling shovels in a gold rush: whichever side dominates AI, chipmakers stand to profit — but being cut out of China risks leaving billions in potential revenue to competitors.

The company has already faced repeated challenges over Washington’s escalating chip restrictions, including last year when it was barred from exporting its most advanced A100 and H100 GPUs to China. Nvidia responded by designing watered-down alternatives like the H20 to stay compliant. The B30A now appears to be the latest attempt to walk that fine line — retaining a foothold in China without violating U.S. export rules.

However, the move is expected to face challenge from Beijing, which has criticized Nvidia’s H20, alleging potential security vulnerabilities and dismissing them as neither technologically advanced nor environmentally friendly.

On July 31, China’s Cyberspace Administration summoned Nvidia executives for a closed-door meeting, demanding an explanation over concerns that the H20 chips could contain hidden hardware mechanisms enabling remote shutdown or unauthorized access—so-called “backdoors” that bypass normal security protocols. Such vulnerabilities, if proven, could theoretically allow foreign actors to disrupt AI systems or siphon sensitive data without detection.

Nvidia has repeatedly denied the allegations, stating both in July and again early August that its products contain no such backdoors. The company maintains that the H20 chips were engineered to comply with U.S. export controls while meeting Chinese market needs, and that all of its hardware undergoes rigorous security testing.

However, Beijing has been persistently wary, creating the belief that the scrutiny will be extended to every chip designed for China by Nvidia.

John Krafcik, the former CEO who steered Waymo from a Google research project into a commercial autonomous ride-hailing company, has cast doubt on Tesla’s much-hyped Robotaxi service, arguing that it falls far short of industry standards for autonomy.

In comments to Business Insider, Krafcik, who led Waymo from 2015 until 2021 and now sits on the board of Tesla rival Rivian, dismissed Tesla’s Robotaxi launch in the Bay Area as little more than a rebranded Uber-style service.

“If they were striving to re-create today’s Bay Area Uber experience,” Krafcik said over email, “looks like they’ve absolutely nailed it.”

Tesla quietly began offering Robotaxi rides in San Francisco in July, about a month after piloting the service, but with a major caveat: every ride includes a Tesla employee in the driver’s seat as a safety monitor. California regulators confirmed that Tesla has not yet applied for the permits required to test or deploy fully driverless vehicles, a step taken by competitors like Waymo and Cruise years ago. CEO Elon Musk has nonetheless promised that the service will be opened to the public by next month.

Krafcik was blunt in his assessment. “Please let me know when Tesla launches a robotaxi — I’m still waiting,” he said. “It’s (rather obviously) not a robotaxi if there’s an employee inside the car.”

In Texas, where Tesla also operates Robotaxi rides in Austin under looser rules, a human monitor sits in the passenger seat rather than behind the wheel. Even so, Krafcik said he has no interest in trying the service, pointing out that its reliance on human oversight makes it no different from an enhanced ride-hailing model.

The Standard for Autonomy

The debate highlights the absence of an agreed definition of a robotaxi. The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) categorizes autonomous driving on a scale of 0 to 6. Levels 4 and 5 qualify as fully autonomous, where no human is required to take over. Tesla’s Robotaxi, however, appears to fall short of even Level 3 autonomy, which requires a driver to intervene when requested.

Tesla has not secured a permit from the California DMV to test driverless cars at Level 3 or above, raising further questions about Musk’s promise of widespread rollout.

Waymo, by contrast, has steadily moved through these levels. It began its “early rider program” in Arizona in 2017, when safety drivers were present and participants signed nondisclosure agreements. In 2019, when select riders tested the service, some noted that while rides were generally smooth, safety drivers occasionally had to take over.

By the end of 2020, Waymo was offering fully driverless, paid rides in Phoenix, becoming the first company to do so in the United States. The company has since expanded to San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Austin, with more than 1,500 robotaxis on the road.

Krafcik stressed that during its early testing phase, Waymo never marketed its service as a “robotaxi” — reserving that label only once safety drivers were no longer required.

“I think the AV industry would be delighted if Tesla followed Waymo’s approach to launch a robotaxi service,” he said, “but they are not doing that.”

Tesla’s Gamble vs. Waymo’s Patience

The skepticism from Krafcik underscores the broader divide between Tesla’s aggressive, promise-driven rollout strategy and Waymo’s more methodical, regulation-heavy approach. While Tesla has long touted its vehicles’ “Full Self-Driving” (FSD) capability, regulators and safety experts argue the company has blurred the line between advanced driver assistance and true autonomy.

Waymo, meanwhile, has endured setbacks of its own. Despite billions in funding from Google parent Alphabet, the company has struggled to prove a sustainable business model, with expansion slowed by costs and regulatory hurdles. Krafcik’s leadership between 2015 and 2021 marked the transition from experimentation to limited commercialization, but it has often been noted that Waymo’s cautious pace has allowed Tesla to dominate the headlines, if not the road.

As Tesla pushes its Robotaxi narrative, industry veterans like Krafcik remain unconvinced that Musk’s vision matches reality. To them, Tesla’s Robotaxi looks less like a technological leap forward and more like a rebranded Uber — with a company employee still firmly in the front seat.

Based on recent market analysis, Bitcoin is trading around $113,775.44, with downside momentum contained near $114,600 after losing a bullish trendline from April lows.

The Coinbase premium indicates U.S. investors are adding buying pressure, as the price difference between BTC on Coinbase and Binance has remained positive since Friday, signaling bargain hunters stepping in. Glassnode’s Supply by Investor Behavior metric also shows fresh demand entering the market, potentially stabilizing prices.

However, technical indicators suggest short-term bearish sentiment, with a possible correction toward $110,530 if support levels break. Despite this, institutional interest and ETF inflows remain strong, supporting a longer-term bullish outlook.

The implications of bargain hunters emerging while Bitcoin remains under pressure suggest a dynamic where short-term bearish momentum is being countered by strategic buying at lower price levels. This creates a potential setup for a price recovery or rally once the retracement phase stabilizes.

Glassnode’s Supply by Investor Behavior metric indicates fresh demand, suggesting new or existing investors are viewing the dip as a buying opportunity, which could stabilize prices and set the stage for a reversal. Technical indicators, such as the loss of the bullish trendline from April lows and bearish signals from tools like the Bollinger Bands, suggest a possible further retracement to levels like $110,530 if support fails.

Strong institutional interest and consistent ETF inflows (as noted in recent market analyses) provide a bullish backdrop. These larger players often have longer investment horizons, which could anchor Bitcoin’s price and fuel a rally once short-term selling subsides.

The current pressure reflects profit-taking or risk-off sentiment, possibly driven by macroeconomic factors or overleveraged positions unwinding. However, the presence of bargain hunters indicates underlying confidence in Bitcoin’s long-term value, which could shift sentiment bullish post-retracement.

How a Market Rally Could Push Prices Upward Post-Retracement

Retracements often test key support levels, such as the 50-day moving average or Fibonacci retracement levels (e.g., 38.2% or 50% from recent highs). For Bitcoin, $110,530 is a noted potential downside target. Once this level holds or shows signs of rejection (e.g., strong volume or candlestick patterns like a bullish engulfing), it signals exhaustion of sellers.

A rally often begins when technical indicators turn bullish, such as a breakout above the 20-day or 50-day moving average, or when the Relative Strength Index (RSI) moves out of oversold territory (below 30). If Bitcoin holds above $114,600 or rebounds from $110,530, momentum indicators could signal a trend reversal.

Increased buying volume, especially from institutional players or ETF inflows, would amplify this momentum, pushing prices toward prior highs (~$120,000) or new resistance levels. A successful defense of key support levels can restore market confidence, triggering FOMO (fear of missing out) among retail and institutional investors.

External catalysts, such as positive regulatory news, macroeconomic easing (e.g., lower interest rates), or increased adoption signals, could further fuel a rally. For instance, continued ETF inflows or corporate treasury allocations to Bitcoin could act as a tailwind. If Bitcoin breaks above the recent high of ~$120,000, it could target the next psychological level at $125,000 or higher, depending on momentum.

Fibonacci extensions (e.g., 161.8% from the retracement low) or historical resistance zones could provide precise targets. The Coinbase premium and institutional demand suggest strong U.S.-led buying, which could drive prices faster in USD-denominated markets. A rally in Bitcoin often correlates with positive sentiment in broader crypto or risk-on assets. If altcoins or related markets also rally, this could amplify Bitcoin’s upward move.

The current retracement is attracting bargain hunters, setting the stage for a potential rally once selling pressure exhausts. A successful defense of support levels (~$114,600 or $110,530) combined with sustained institutional demand and positive technical signals could drive Bitcoin’s price upward, potentially testing $120,000–$125,000 or higher.

Elon Musk’s social media platform X is facing renewed struggles on Android devices, as fresh data reveals a sharp decline in new installs.

According to app intelligence provider Appfigures, X downloads on Google Play plunged by 44 percent year-on-year worldwide in July 2025, even as Apple’s App Store recorded a 15 percent increase in downloads during the same period.

The contrasting figures underscore a widening gap in user adoption across mobile platforms. While X continues to attract new users on iOS, the steep drop in Android installs is pulling down the platform’s overall performance. Total mobile downloads fell by 26 percent year-on-year in July, a slight improvement compared to June, when downloads had plummeted by 35 percent after Android installs nosedived by nearly half (49 percent).

Appfigures stopped short of fully explaining the decline on Android, but analysts have long flagged the poor state of X’s app on Google Play. The Android version is notorious for being buggy, unstable, and prone to frequent crashes, making it a sore point for the company.

In response, X’s recently appointed head of product, Nikita Bier, has hinted at major changes aimed at fixing the Android problem. Bier, best known for “growth hacking” social apps like Gas and TBH before selling them, announced that X was building what he called an “Android Dream Team” to completely rebuild the app. In a recent post on the platform, he claimed X’s iOS app had just recorded its best-ever week of installs, a move many observers interpreted as an effort to deflect attention from the Android slump.

The decline has also sparked questions about where disaffected Android users are going. Rival Bluesky, another Twitter alternative, has not capitalized meaningfully, as its own growth has slowed. Its Google Play app recorded just 119,000 downloads in July—tiny compared to the millions of monthly installs that X still attracts across platforms. However, Meta’s Threads appears to be gaining momentum, with its daily active users closing in on X’s figures, particularly on mobile. Some analysts suggest that a portion of Android users abandoning X may be moving to Threads.

Beyond user growth, X is also struggling to expand its subscription-based revenue. Appfigures data shows that in July, the company earned $16.9 million in net revenue from its premium services, down from $18.8 million in March 2025, though marginally up from $16.8 million in June. The stagnation underscores X’s difficulties in convincing users to pay for extra features.

A key factor in this revenue challenge is the rise of Grok, the AI chatbot built by Musk’s xAI startup and tightly integrated into X. While Grok was initially bundled into X’s subscription tiers, it now has its own standalone app that is drawing away users who had previously subscribed to X primarily for AI perks. This development has left X more reliant than ever on advertising for the bulk of its revenue—a business line that has been under pressure since Musk’s 2022 takeover, as advertisers pulled back over concerns about content moderation and brand safety.

The numbers paint a stark picture: X is enjoying growth among iOS users but is failing to capture or retain Android users at the same pace. The company’s hopes now rest on Bier’s team successfully revamping the Android app, even as it faces mounting competition from Meta and other emerging platforms.

With Musk’s ambitious push to transform X into an “everything app” still in motion, the latest figures highlight the structural hurdles the platform faces in its bid to remain central to online conversation.