Sure, most Americans are glued to their TVs for the today's Super Bowl and/or the Winter Olympics. But for the non-sports minded, Amazon MGM Studios has released one last trailer for its forthcoming space odyssey Project Hail Mary, based on Andy Weir’s (The Martian) bestselling 2021 novel about an amnesiac biologist-turned-schoolteacher in space.

As previously reported, Amazon MGM Studios acquired the rights for Weir’s novel before it was even published and brought on Drew Goddard to write the screenplay. (Goddard also wrote the adapted screenplay for The Martian, so he’s an excellent choice.) The studio tapped Phil Lord and Christopher Miller (Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, The LEGO Movie) to direct and signed on Ryan Gosling to star. Per the official premise:

Science teacher Ryland Grace (Ryan Gosling) wakes up on a spaceship light years from home with no recollection of who he is or how he got there. As his memory returns, he begins to uncover his mission: solve the riddle of the mysterious substance causing the sun to die out. He must call on his scientific knowledge and unorthodox ideas to save everything on Earth from extinction… but an unexpected friendship means he may not have to do it alone.

In addition to Gosling, the cast includes Sandra Huller as head of the Hail Mary project and Ryland’s superior; Milana Vayntrub as project astronaut Olesya Ilyukhina; Ken Leung as project astronaut Yao Li-Jie; Liz Kingsman as Shapiro; Orion Lee as Xi; and James Ortiz as a new life form Ryland names Rocky.

To say there's a lot of interest in this movie might be an understatement. The first trailer was released in June and racked up a whopping 400 million views worldwide in its first week. The footage—which included Ryland discovering an alien ship inhabited by the aforementioned Rocky—gave every indication of following Weir’s novel pretty closely. That’s very good news for Weir fans, which includes several of us here at Ars.

That earlier trailer mostly gave us a lot of backstory about how Ryland ended up reluctantly agreeing to the mission, with just a few glimpses of Rocky. But Rocky is front and center for this latest one. The footage focuses on how Ryland and Rocky learn to communicate and gradually bond over their shared fates, with strains of Prince's "I Would Die For You" echoing in the background. It starts with Rocky imitating Ryland's body motions, including a goofy hero pose. Eventually Ryland figures out how to synthesize and voice for Rocky so they can better coordinate their strategies. Will they succeed? Or is this a one-way trip for one or both of them?

Project Hail Mary hits theaters on March 20, 2026.

Read full article

Comments

Last week, filmmaker Darren Aronofsky's AI studio Primordial Soup and Time magazine released the first two episodes of On This Day... 1776. The year-long series of short-form videos features short vignettes describing what happened on that day of the American Revolution 250 years ago, but it does so using “a variety of AI tools” to produce photorealistic scenes containing avatars of historical figures like George Washington, Thomas Paine, and Benjamin Franklin.

In announcing the series, Time Studios President Ben Bitonti said the project provides "a glimpse at what thoughtful, creative, artist-led use of AI can look like—not replacing craft but expanding what’s possible and allowing storytellers to go places they simply couldn’t before."

Outside critics were decidedly less excited about the effort. The AV Club took the introductory episodes to task for "repetitive camera movements [and] waxen characters" that make for "an ugly look at American history." CNET said that this "AI slop is ruining American history," calling the videos a "hellish broth of machine-driven AI slop and bad human choices." The Guardian lamented that the "once-lauded director of Black Swan and The Wrestler has drowned himself in AI slop," calling the series "embarrassing," "terrible," and "ugly as sin." I could go on.

But this kind of initial reaction apparently hasn't deterred Primordial Soup from its still-evolving efforts. A source close to the production, who requested anonymity to speak frankly about details of the series' creation, told Ars that the quality of new episodes would improve as the team's AI tools are refined throughout the year and as the team learns to better use them.

"We're going into this fully assuming that we have a lot to learn, that this process is gonna evolve, the tools we're using are gonna evolve," the source said. "We're gonna make mistakes. We're gonna learn a lot... we're going to get better at it, [and] the technology will change. We'll see how audiences are reacting to certain things, what works, what doesn't work. It's a huge experiment, really."

Not all AI

It's important to note that On This Day... 1776 is not fully crafted by AI. The script, for instance, was written by a team of writers overseen by Aronofsky's longtime writing partners Ari Handel and Lucas Sussman, as noted by The Hollywood Reporter. That makes criticisms like the Guardian's of "ChatGPT-sounding sloganeering" in the first episodes both somewhat misplaced and hilariously harsh.

Our production source says the project was always conceived as a human-written effort and that the team behind it had long been planning and researching how to tell this kind of story. "I don't think [they] even needed that kind of help or wanted that kind of [AI-powered writing] help," they said. "We've all experimented with [AI-powered] writing and the chatbots out there, and you know what kind of quality you get out of that."

What you see here is not a real human actor, but his lines were written and voiced by humans. Credit: Primordial Soup

The producers also go out of their way to note that all the dialogue in the series is recorded directly by Screen Actors Guild voice actors, not by AI facsimiles. While recently negotiated union rules might have something to do with that, our production source also said the AI-generated voices the team used for temp tracks were noticeably artificial and not ready for a professional production.

Humans are also directly responsible for the music, editing, sound mixing, visual effects, and color correction for the project, according to our source. The only place the "AI-powered tools" come into play is in the video itself, which is crafted with what the announcement calls a "combination of traditional filmmaking tools and emerging AI capabilities."

In practice, our source says, that means humans create storyboards, find visual references for locations and characters, and set up how they want shots to look. That information, along with the script, gets fed into an AI video generator that creates individual shots one at a time, to be stitched together and cleaned up by humans in traditional post-production.

That process takes the AI-generated cinema conversation one step beyond Ancestra, a short film Primordial Soup released last summer in association with Google DeepMind (which is not involved with the new project). There, AI tools were used to augment "live-action scenes with sequences generated by Veo."

"Weeks" of prompting and re-prompting

In theory, having an AI model generate a scene in minutes might save a lot of time compared to traditional filmmaking—scouting locations, hiring actors, setting up cameras and sets, and the like. But our production source said the highly iterative process of generating and perfecting shots for On This Day... 1776 still takes "weeks" for each minutes-long video and that "more often than not, we're pushing deadlines."

Even though the AI model is essentially animating photorealistic avatars, the source said the process is "more like live action filmmaking" because of the lack of fine-grained control over what the video model will generate. "You don't know if you're gonna get what you want on the first take or the 12th take or the 40th take," the source said.

While some shots take less time to get right than others, our source said the AI model rarely produces a perfect, screen-ready shot on the first try. And while some small issues in an AI-generated shot can be papered over in post-production with visual effects or careful editing, most of the time, the team has to go back and tell the model to generate a completely new video with small changes.

"It still takes a lot of work, and it's not necessarily because it's wrong, per se, so much as trying to get the right control because you [might] want the light to land on the face in the right way to try to tell the story," the source said. "We're still, we're still striving for the same amount of control that we always have [with live-action production] to really maximize the story and the emotion."

Quick shots and smaller budgets

Though video models have advanced since the days of the nightmarish clip of Will Smith eating spaghetti, hallucinations and nonsensical images are "still a problem" in producing On This Day... 1776, according to our source. That's one of the reasons the company decided to use a series of short-form videos rather than a full-length movie telling the same essential story.

"It's one thing to stay consistent within three minutes. It's a lot harder and it takes a lot more work to stay consistent within two hours," the source said. "I don't know what the upper limit is now [but] the longer you get, the more things start to fall off."

We've come a long way from the circa-2023 videos of Will Smith eating spaghetti. Credit: chaindrop / Reddit

Keeping individual shots short also allows for more control and fewer "reshoots" for an AI-animated production like this. "When you think about it, if you're trying to create a 20-second clip, you have all these things that are happening, and if one of those things goes wrong in 20 seconds, you have to start over," our source said. "And the chance of something going wrong in 20 seconds is pretty high. The chance of something going wrong in eight seconds is a lot lower."

While our production source couldn't give specifics on how much the team was spending to generate so much AI-modeled video, they did suggest that the process was still a good deal cheaper than filming a historical docudrama like this on location.

"I mean, we could never achieve what we're doing here for this amount of money, which I think is pretty clear when you watch this," they said. In future episodes, the source promised, "you'll see where there's things that cameras just can't even do" as a way to "make the most of that medium."

"Let's see what we can do"

If you've been paying attention to how fast things have been moving with AI-generated video, you might think that AI models will soon be able to produce Hollywood-quality cinema with nothing but a simple prompt. But our source said that working on On This Day... 1776 highlights just how important it is for humans to still be in the loop on something like this.

"Personally, I don't think we're ever gonna get there [replacing human editors]," he said. "We actually desperately need an editor. We need another set of eyes who can look at the cut and say, 'If we get out of this shot a little early, then we can create a little bit of urgency. If we linger on this thing a little longer...' You still really need that."

AI Ben Franklin and AI Thomas Paine toast to the war propaganda effort. Credit: Primordial Soup

That could be good news for human editors. But On This Day... 1776 also suggests a world where on-screen (or even motion-captured) human actors are fully replaced by AI-generated avatars. When I asked our source why the producers felt that AI was ready to take over that specifically human part of the film equation, though, the response surprised me.

"I don't know that we do know that, honestly," they said. "I think we know that the technology is there to try. And I think as storytellers we're really interested in using... all the different tools that we can to try to get our story across and to try to make audiences feel something."

"It's not often that we have huge new tools like this," the source continued. "I mean, it's never happened in my lifetime. But when you do [get these new tools], you want to start playing with them... We have to try things in order to know if it works, if it doesn't work."

"So, you know, we have the tools now. Let's see what we can do."

Read full article

Comments

As the 2026 Olympic Winter Games begin today, news articles are swelling with juicy claims that male ski jumpers have injected their penises with fillers to gain a flight advantage.

As the rumor goes, having a bigger bulge on a required 3D body scan taken in the pre-season could earn jumpers extra centimeters of material in their jumpsuits—and a suit's larger nether regions provide more surface area to glide to the gold. Even a small increase can make a satisfying difference in this sport. A 2025 simulation-based study published in the journal Frontiers in Sports and Active Living suggested that every 2 cm of extra fabric in a ski jumpsuit could increase drag by about 4 percent and increase lift by about 5 percent. On a jump, that extra 2 cm of fabric amounts to an extra 5.8 meters, the simulations found.

Elite ski jumpers are aware of the advantage and have already crotch-rocketed to scandal with related schemes. Last year, two Norwegian Olympic medalists, Marius Lindvik and Johann Andre Forfang, and three of their team officials were charged with cheating after an anonymous video showed the head coach and suit technician illegally restitching the crotch area of the two jumpers' suits to make them larger. The jumpers received a three-month suspension, while the head coach, an assistant coach, and the technician faced a harsher 18-month ban.

Injections are alleged to be a new, more drastic strategy. Rumors that jumpers were internally padding their peckers first came to light in January, when German newspaper Bild reported that there were "whispers" of jumpers using hyaluronic acid or possibly paraffin injections.

Bild quoted Dr. Kamran Karim, a specialist at Maria-Hilf Hospital in Krefeld, Germany, as saying (translated): "There is the possibility of obtaining a temporary, optical thickening of the penis with the injection of paraffin or hyaluronic acid. ... Such an injection, however, is not medically indicated and involves risks."

On Thursday, the injection claims sprang up again at a press conference in which journalists asked officials of the World Anti-Doping Agency about the claims. The agency's director general said they were not aware of any claims and that non-doping means of enhancing performance are not in their purview. But according to the BBC, WADA President Witold Banka, who is from Poland, was "clearly entertained" by the questions, responding: "Ski jumping is very popular in Poland, so I promise you I'm going to look at it."

Bruno Sassi, the communications director for FIS, the international ski and snowboard federation, seemed less amused, telling the BBC, "There has never been any indication, let alone evidence, that any competitor has ever made use of a hyaluronic acid injection to attempt to gain a competitive advantage."

But what if they did? Here's what we know about hyaluronic acid and paraffin for penis augmentation.

Hyaluronic acid

While some news outlets have played up the "acid" part of its name, hyaluronic acid is not some nefarious flesh-melting hazard. It's a common filler used for various clinical purposes.

Hyaluronic acid is a polysaccharide that is naturally found in a wide variety of tissues in the human body, including the skin, eyes, and connective tissue. It's a chief component of the extracellular matrix. It attracts water molecules to itself, creating volume that can provide structural support. In a pure form, it has no tissue or even species specificity and therefore is considered to have little risk of sparking immune responses.

As such, hyaluronic acid gel fillers are used in a variety of medical procedures, with approval from the Food and Drug Administration. Hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers are injected into joints, particularly knees, to relieve pain from mild to moderate arthritis, which can decrease the natural amount of HA in joints. Age also decreases natural levels of HA, and one of the main uses of HA fillers is for cosmetic purposes—plumping lips and cheeks, and minimizing the appearance of wrinkles and fine lines in the face. HA fillers can also be used inside the eye in a variety of surgeries, including cataract extraction and corneal transplants. It can also be used topically for wound care and to relieve skin pain and itching.

For these purposes, the most common adverse effects are pain, bruising, redness, itching, and swelling, which usually last for just a few days. In extremely rare cases, there can be more serious side effects from injections, such as bacterial infections, tissue death (from blocked blood flow), and a granulomatous foreign body reaction, in which the immune system tries to clear a foreign substance, such as bacterial impurities, leading to a collection of immune cells.

A notable feature of HA fillers is that they have something of an antidote. For procedures that go wrong for whatever reason, clinicians can use hyaluronidase, an enzyme that breaks down hyaluronic acid, to dissolve the filler. Hyaluronidase is then rapidly deactivated and degraded in the body. But even without any dissolving, HA fillers offer only temporary effects, lasting between eight weeks and up to six months, for the various established uses.

Plumping penises

What is not on the list of established clinical purposes for HA fillers is penis augmentation. But that's not from a lack of trying. Studies have looked at the possibility of using HA fillers for adding girth and length—and some of have reported positive results. But so far, there's a lack of evidence to support safety and efficacy. Still, that hasn't stopped cosmetic clinics around the world from offering it anyway.

In a 2022 study in the Asian Journal of Andrology, researchers in China followed 38 patients who had HA filler injections, which seemed to provide desired results. One month after injections, the men saw an average increase of 3.4 cm in girth and 2.5 cm in length when flaccid. After a year, the measurements had decreased, but were still an increase of 2.4 cm in girth and 1.65 cm in length. Erect girth ended at an average increase of 0.8 cm. The researchers reported that only three patients had complications: two had swelling, and one had bleeding under the skin. All three cases resolved on their own.

However, not all reports are so rosy. In a 2021 case study in BMC Urology, researchers in Australia reported the experience of a 31-year-old man who received penis HA fillers at a cosmetic clinic. He developed a severe penis infection soon after that led to sepsis and multi-organ failure, landing him in the intensive care unit. Doctors ended up surgically removing pus-stained filler from his penis, which laboratory tests found teeming with Streptococcus pyogenes.

Another case study in 2021, published in a Japanese urology journal, reported that a 65-year-old man had to have part of his penis surgically removed after having HA fillers injected into the head of his penis. When he arrived at the hospital, black necrotic lesions and ulcers were readily visible.

Paraffin

While things can go wrong with HA fillers, despite their legitimate clinical uses, the outcomes for paraffin injections are much darker. Amid the Olympics scandal, most of the focus has been on hyaluronic acid. But the initial Bild article introduced speculation that skiers could also use paraffin injections to jack up their junk, which would be a terrible idea.

The use of injections of mineral oil or paraffin wax for cosmetic procedures dates back to at least 1899, when it was almost immediately found to have horrifying results. The injections lead to what's called paraffinoma, in which the body tries to encapsulate and sequester the oil it can't degrade. The result is tissue that looks like swiss cheese—with large spaces filled with oil. Over time, the tissue becomes thickened and scarred and can block lymphatic drainage. From the outside, it results in disfiguring and debilitating lesions. Some people initially ignored these disturbing results because, in some cases, the lesions can take years to develop.

While such injections have largely been abandoned, cases occasionally crop up. That includes a 2002 report of a 64-year-old Michigan man who self-injected his penis with mineral oil to increase its girth. He used a series of shots over the course of 18 months. Two years after the last shot, he went to urologists because of an increasing mass in his penis that was causing erectile dysfunction and making it difficult to urinate. He reluctantly admitted to the oil injections only after his doctors suspected cancer. In the end, the doctors had to surgically remove the mass of oily nodules from all around his penis and circumcise him.

Whatever is going on in the trousers of Olympic ski jumpers, let's hope it doesn't involve paraffin.

Read full article

Comments

Amid a push toward AI agents, with both Anthropic and OpenAI shipping multi-agent tools this week, Anthropic is more than ready to show off some of its more daring AI coding experiments. But as usual with claims of AI-related achievement, you'll find some key caveats ahead.

On Thursday, Anthropic researcher Nicholas Carlini published a blog post describing how he set 16 instances of the company's Claude Opus 4.6 AI model loose on a shared codebase with minimal supervision, tasking them with building a C compiler from scratch.

Over two weeks and nearly 2,000 Claude Code sessions costing about $20,000 in API fees, the AI model agents reportedly produced a 100,000-line Rust-based compiler capable of building a bootable Linux 6.9 kernel on x86, ARM, and RISC-V architectures.

Carlini, a research scientist on Anthropic's Safeguards team who previously spent seven years at Google Brain and DeepMind, used a new feature launched with Claude Opus 4.6 called "agent teams." In practice, each Claude instance ran inside its own Docker container, cloning a shared Git repository, claiming tasks by writing lock files, then pushing completed code back upstream. No orchestration agent directed traffic. Each instance independently identified whatever problem seemed most obvious to work on next and started solving it. When merge conflicts arose, the AI model instances resolved them on their own.

The resulting compiler, which Anthropic has released on GitHub, can compile a range of major open source projects, including PostgreSQL, SQLite, Redis, FFmpeg, and QEMU. It achieved a 99 percent pass rate on the GCC torture test suite and, in what Carlini called "the developer's ultimate litmus test," compiled and ran Doom.

It's worth noting that a C compiler is a near-ideal task for semi-autonomous AI model coding: The specification is decades old and well-defined, comprehensive test suites already exist, and there's a known-good reference compiler to check against. Most real-world software projects have none of these advantages. The hard part of most development isn't writing code that passes tests; it's figuring out what the tests should be in the first place.

The compiler also has clear limitations that Carlini was upfront about. It lacks a 16-bit x86 backend needed to boot Linux from real mode, so it calls out to GCC for that step. Its own assembler and linker remain buggy. Even with all optimizations enabled, it produces less efficient code than GCC running with all optimizations disabled. And the Rust code quality, while functional, does not approach what an expert Rust programmer would produce. "The resulting compiler has nearly reached the limits of Opus's abilities," Carlini wrote. "I tried (hard!) to fix several of the above limitations but wasn't fully successful. New features and bugfixes frequently broke existing functionality."

Those limitations may actually be more informative than the successes. Carlini reports that toward the end of the project, fixing bugs and adding features "frequently broke existing functionality," a pattern familiar to anyone who has watched a codebase grow beyond the point where any contributor fully understands it.

And that limitation is even more common when dealing with AI coding agents, which lose coherence over time. The model hit this wall at around 100,000 lines, which suggests a practical ceiling for autonomous agentic coding, at least with current models.

The human work behind the automation

Anthropic describes the compiler as a "clean-room implementation" because the agents had no Internet access during development. But that framing is somewhat misleading. The underlying model was trained on enormous quantities of publicly available source code, almost certainly including GCC, Clang, and numerous smaller C compilers. In traditional software development, "clean room" specifically means the implementers have never seen the original code. By that standard, this isn't one.

On Hacker News, the distinction drew sharp debate, reflective of a controversial reception to the news among developers. "It was rather a brute force attempt to decompress fuzzily stored knowledge contained within the network," wrote one commenter.

The $20,000 figure also deserves some context. That number covers only API token costs and excludes the billions spent training the model, the human labor Carlini invested in building the scaffolding, and the decades of work by compiler engineers who created the test suites and reference implementations that made the project possible.

And that scaffolding was not trivial, which makes any claim of "autonomous" work on the C compiler among the AI agents dubious. While the headline result is a compiler written without human pair-programming, much of the real work that made the project function involved designing the environment around the AI model agents rather than writing compiler code directly. Carlini spent considerable effort building test harnesses, continuous integration pipelines, and feedback systems tuned for the specific ways language models fail.

He found, for example, that verbose test output polluted the model's context window, causing it to lose track of what it was doing. To address this, Carlini designed test runners that printed only a few summary lines and logged details to separate files.

He also found that Claude has no sense of time and will spend hours running tests without making progress, so he built a fast mode that samples only 1 percent to 10 percent of test cases. When all 16 agents got stuck trying to fix the same Linux kernel bug simultaneously, he used GCC as a reference oracle, randomly compiling most kernel files with GCC and only a subset with Claude's compiler, so each agent could work on different bugs in different files.

"Claude will work autonomously to solve whatever problem I give it," Carlini wrote. "So it's important that the task verifier is nearly perfect, otherwise Claude will solve the wrong problem."

None of this should obscure what the project actually demonstrates. A year ago, no language model could have produced anything close to a functional multi-architecture compiler, even with this kind of babysitting and an unlimited budget. The methodology of parallel agents coordinating through Git with minimal human supervision is novel, and the engineering tricks Carlini developed to keep the agents productive (context-aware test output, time-boxing, the GCC oracle for parallelization) could potentially represent useful contributions to the wider use of agentic software development tools.

Carlini himself acknowledged feeling conflicted about his own results. "Building this compiler has been some of the most fun I've had recently, but I did not expect this to be anywhere near possible so early in 2026," he wrote. He also raised concerns rooted in his previous career in penetration testing, noting that "the thought of programmers deploying software they've never personally verified is a real concern."

Read full article

Comments

A new AMC documentary limited series on the San Francisco 49ers premieres with the first two episodes on Sunday and two more on Monday.

Yesterday afternoon, following the end of trading on Wall Street for the day, Tesla published its financial results for 2025. They weren't particularly good: Profits were almost halved, and revenues declined year on year for the first time in the company's history. The reasons for the company's troubles are myriad. CEO Elon Musk's bankrolling of right-wing politics and promotion of AI-generated revenge porn deepfakes and CSAM has alienated plenty of potential customers. For those who either don't know or don't care about that stuff, there's still the problem of a tiny and aging model lineup, with large question marks over safety and reliability. Soon, that tiny lineup will be even smaller.

The news emerged during Tesla's call with investors last night. As Ars and others have observed, in recent years Musk appears to have grown bored with the prosaic business of running a profitable car company. Silicon Valley stopped finding that stuff sexy years ago, and no other electric vehicle startup has been able to generate a value within an order of magnitude of the amount that Tesla has been determined to be worth by investors.

Musk's attention first turned away from building and selling cars to the goal of autonomous driving, spurred on at the time by splashy headlines garnered by Google spinoff Waymo. Combined with ride-hailing—a huge IPO by Uber took the spotlight off Tesla long enough for it to become a new business focus for the automaker too—Musk told adoring fans and investors that soon their cars would become appreciating assets that earned money for them at night. And as an intermediary, Tesla would take a hefty cut for connecting the rider and the ridee.

Autonomy remains a stated goal for Tesla: last week it announced it's moving to a purely subscription-based approach for its FSD partially automated driving assist for all new Teslas purchased from mid-February. At the same time, it's doing away with Autopilot entirely, it's a less-capable, partially automated driving assist. The company's goal is more ambitious, involving selling two-seat robotaxis that lack even a steering wheel or pedals, but only once it has proven the technology, something it's currently attempting with little success on the streets of Austin, Texas.

But even robotaxis have lost some of their shine. For Musk, the real action is with his humanoid robot. These will sell in the billions, Musk has claimed, adding up to $20 trillion to Tesla's market capitalization at some point in the future. And he needs factory space to build these Optimus robots, which Tesla claims will go on sale in 2027. And that means an end to the Model S sedan and Model X SUV.

Once a world-beater

The Model S wasn't Tesla's first car, but it was the first one it built from scratch. At the time, it was simply revolutionary. EVs from traditional automakers were still firmly in the realm of the compliance car—hasty conversions of internal combustion engine-powered models with the batteries and control electronics crammed wherever possible, plus maybe some aerodynamic smoothing to try to eke out a little more range.

By contrast, the Model S was designed as an EV from the ground up, with a big enough battery to go 265 miles (426 km) on a full charge—something unthinkable in any other EV on sale. It didn't hurt that the car was seriously quick in a straight line and came with infotainment that made anything else on the road seem dated. When Ars tested one in 2013, we were impressed.

Over the years, the Model S got more power and more advanced driver assists—and eventually, a cosmetic facelift. But as rivals responded with vehicles like the Porsche Taycan and Lucid Air, the Model S stagnated rather than being replaced.

Similar neglect was shown to the Model X, the brand's SUV-cum-minivan. The lengthy and troubled gestation for the Model X was a forerunner of the problems Tesla has faced developing each successive product; in this particular case, the "falcon wing" doors, created as an alternative to the minivan's traditional sliding door, proved particularly problematic to get right. Indeed, I still remember being smacked in the head by one at my first introduction to the ungainly people-mover. And yet, compared to the other SUVs on sale in 2016, the Model X still stood out.

A decade later, it's fair to say the Model X still stands out, but like a sore thumb. Its looks never became more gainly, and there is now vast competition for large, luxurious electric SUVs, whether that's from Chinese startups like BYD and Xiaomi, American startups like Rivian and Lucid, or the traditional automakers that now have a handle on electrification.

That has been reflected in the sales. Right-hand drive cars for markets including the UK, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan ended production in 2023. And each quarter, production and sales of the Model S and X slipped more and more. Even lumped together with the poorly selling Cybertruck—which is only offered in the US—these deliveries fell by more than half in Q4 2025, and by 40 percent for the year.

Is there much reason to expect that the development of the Optimus robot will be any smoother than the "development hell" that beset the Model X, 3, Y, and Cybertruck? On last night's call, Musk admitted—contrary to previous claims—that the robots are not doing any useful work at the Tesla factory, and the idea that the company will build 10,000 robots this year seems in conflict with Optimus still being "very much at the early stages" and "still in the R&D phase," to use Musk's own words.

Read full article

Comments