Meta in talks for Scale AI investment that could top $10 billion, Bloomberg News reports
June 8 (Reuters) - Meta Platforms (META.O), opens new tab is in talks to make an investment that could exceed $10 billion in artificial intelligence startup Scale AI, Bloomberg News reported on Sunday.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
36 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Booming US gambling industry a ‘highway without speed limits', top regulator warns
The US gambling industry has become a 'highway without speed limits', according to a top state regulator, as the nationwide gambling boom continues at pace. Jordan Maynard, chair of the Massachusetts gaming commission, urged lawmakers in Washington to consider nationwide rules on advertising by betting firms. Operators have spent years lobbying against a federal crackdown. Nationwide exclusion lists, blocking gamblers who encounter problems like addiction from placing a bet anywhere in the country, are also 'ripe for a federal conversation', Maynard said in an interview with the Guardian. Like most gambling policies, such lists are currently state-focused, and often easily circumventable by crossing state lines. Maynard joined Massachusetts's gambling commission in August 2022, the same month sports betting was legalized in the state, and became the regulator's interim chair last spring. A permanent appointment followed in the fall. His relationship with operators has, at times, been strained. 'When I think about the industry right now, I see a highway without speed limits, cars without seatbelt dingers,' he said. 'Regulators are who put the seatbelt dingers in. I don't think the car manufacturers just woke up one day and decided to annoy whoever's driving the car until they put their seatbelt on. 'And so I think that's the perfect place for a regulator to be: to come in and say, you know, we're not going to prevent every crash that could happen, right? But what we're going to do is make sure that people are educated in what they're doing; that they're trained up to a certain standard before they ever do it; make sure that those who seek to benefit economically from this industry are held to high standards.' Online sports betting has surged since 2018, when the US supreme court struck down a decades-old law that prohibited the practice across much of the country. 'And we're really early on in this process,' said Maynard. The industry has moved fast – sports betting is now legal in 37 states – and pushed back hard against many proposed regulations. While lobbyists for legal operators insist they are heavily regulated, they have bluntly dismissed calls for federal action, and resisted restrictions put forward by states. Legal online gambling operators have spent years pushing to attract millions of users to their platforms, and generate more money from those users, as the nascent market continues its rapid expansion. 'I do want to construct a partnership,' Maynard said, of his work with the industry. 'But there is a [need to be] regulated, and there is a regulator.' Gambling regulators typically have two primary goals: to protect the legal betting market, which generates welcome tax dollars for their state; and shield the state's citizens from harm, amid mounting concerns over the social impact of gambling's rise. 'A lot of people try to figure me out as a regulator. It's really, really simple,' said Maynard. 'I'm not thinking about big business … I'm thinking about: how does this affect the patrons and the citizens of Massachusetts?' Operators have not always welcomed his scrutiny. A year ago, two months into Maynard's interim stint as chair, the commission hosted a public roundtable on how, when and why betting platform operators placed limits on gamblers, amid claims that some who routinely won had faced restrictions. At the last minute, the industry swerved en masse. Ten gambling firms operating in Massachusetts, after initially signaling they would attend, turned down the invitation and requested a private meeting instead. 'Transparency is key to integrity,' Maynard said, as he opened the roundtable. When another was held last fall, the industry showed up. 'They were worried about having the conversation in public,' reflected Maynard. 'My job is not to increase profits for the operators. That's not my job. My job is to balance the equities and to cure any inequities. And so I didn't take it personally.' Artificial intelligence is, meanwhile, transforming the gambling sector. 'If operators are using technology to target bettors, that technology can be used to promote healthy behaviors,' said Maynard. 'And I believe that a way that happens quicker is for regulators to get involved on the issue.' But when regulations and restrictions are proposed on sports betting, from curbing bets on specific student athletes to bans on in-game betting, the industry's legal operators and their representatives often warn such measures will create friction for gamblers – and risk driving them to illegal, unregulated platforms. Maynard has grown tired of this refrain. 'I don't like the unregulated market being used as the boogeyman to every operator for every reason,' he said. 'I don't want the legal market to race to be the illegal market. I want the illegal market to either not exist, or if it does exist, it's in a highly competitive space with what's regulated.' 'Some reasonable, rational friction is a good thing,' he added, citing the introduction of weapons detectors in casinos across Massachusetts. 'We did have to work on that. I mean, listen, it created friction. And we were told by the operators that it would create friction. I think a vast majority of patrons in Massachusetts would say that friction is well worth it to ensure that no guns hit the floor of the casino.' On college campuses and even in high school classrooms nationwide, concern has risen over the prevalence of underage gambling. 'This is a good opportunity for the operators,' observed Maynard, who has welcomed some adverts funded by industry. No one under the age of 21 in Massachusetts is supposed to wager on sports betting. 'I don't bury my head in the sand. I know that it's happening,' said Maynard. 'The question becomes: what can I do to ensure that it's not happening? And we are doing the best we can.' 'No kid wants to hear me lecture them on why they shouldn't be doing this,' he said. 'But you know, when the operators get involved … when athletes get involved, when the leagues get involved, I believe – and we're testing this, but I believe – that's where we can see some changes.' Officials across the US have struggled to gauge the scope and scale of offshore, illegal sports betting. Some studies have indicated the black market is vast, despite the legal market's boom in recent years. 'We're going to have to play Whac-a-Mole a little bit,' said Maynard, 'to combat the illegal market, while promoting the fact that the legal market has protection and oversights by the state that the illegal market doesn't have.' On this, and so many other issues, however, gambling regulators face an uphill battle. At times, Maynard sounded despondent. 'There are days I don't know if anyone cares about what we're doing,' he said, during one interview. Regulators across the board 'are not being respected' right now, he suggested, saying: 'I think that trickles across and down. It can be as wide as the industry, and down to the average citizen.' Ultimately, he believes the time has come to find gambling's speed limits and seat belts. 'When I lay down, I sleep really well,' he said.
The Guardian
39 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Trump-Musk feud shows what happens when unregulated money floods politics
Elon Musk said, very loudly and very publicly, what is usually the quiet part of the role of money in US politics. 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate. Such ingratitude,' he wrote on his X social media platform amid an ongoing feud with Donald Trump. When rightwing commentator Laura Loomer wrote that Republicans on Capitol Hill had been discussing whom to side with in the inter-party feud, Musk replied with a nod toward the long tail of his influence. 'Oh and some food for thought as they ponder this question: Trump has 3.5 years left as President, but I will be around for 40+ years … ,' Musk wrote on X. Billionaires in the US often seek to influence politics in big and small ways, throwing their money and influence around to extract what they want from the government. But few are as explicit and influential as Musk has proven in the past year – and it's showing just how transactional and broken US governance has become. The Trump-Musk battle exemplifies the post-Citizens United picture of US politics: the world's richest person paid handsomely to elect his favored candidate, then took a formal, if temporary, role with a new governmental initiative created for him that focused on dismantling parts of the government he didn't like. We're sitting ringside to a fight between the mega-rich president and the far richer Republican donor to see who can cut more services from the poor. As one satirical website put it: 'Aw! These Billionaires Are Fighting Over How Much Money to Steal From Poor People.' Fifteen years ago, the US supreme court ruled that corporations and outside groups could spend as much as they wanted on elections. In that ruling, conservative justice Anthony Kennedy said: 'The appearance of influence or access, furthermore, will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy.' In the years since, it's become clear that these infusions of wealth have eroded democracy, with Musk's ostentatious example accelerating an already out-of-control level of money in politics. Musk spent nearly $300m to elect Trump in 2024. It's the billionaire's government now. 'Fifteen years after that decision, we're seeing the full culmination of living under a Citizens United world – where it's not just elections that are for sale, but it's that our entire government, and the apparatus of our government, is up for sale,' Tiffany Muller, the president of End Citizens United, told the Bulwark earlier this year. Musk isn't alone here: in races up and down the ballot, ultra-rich donors are throwing around their cash to get their favored candidates elected. This is the standard state of play for politics in the US now, in both political parties. Bernie Sanders confronted Democrats at their convention last year to say: 'Billionaires in both parties should not be able to buy elections, including primary elections.' Earlier this year, Musk poured big money into a Wisconsin judicial election, but lost to the Democratic candidate. And he's sent small-dollar donations to Republicans who wanted to go after judges who ruled against the Trump administration. The threat of his money, even if it is uneven and has an inconsistent success record, looms large for both political parties. But, by virtue of his unelected role, Musk couldn't do as much as he wanted to stop Trump's signature spending bill – or so it seems so far. Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' didn't cut enough spending or favor Musk enough or otherwise meet his litmus test for a budget. And when the administration stopped working for him, he turned on it, blazing out the door in a chaotic fashion. It's a fitting coda to the uneasy alliance between Trump and Musk that started with a warm embrace and front-row status for the ultra-wealthy when Trump took office. The fact that Musk holds such sway over the budget process is in itself corruption. Trump has said Musk knew what was in the bill, the undertone being that the administration sought his approval before the public explosion. Musk embraced a brawling style of political spending that is rare among the uber-wealthy, who tend to let their money speak louder than their public words. One expert in philanthropy previously told the Guardian Musk stood out because of his 'complete eschewal of discretion as a mode of political engagement'. Musk is now rallying his followers on X to reach out to their members of Congress and kill the bill, a quest that could be successful, depending on how Republican lawmakers shake out when they're forced to decide between their ideologue president and a megadonor known for his vindictiveness. In rightwing media, the feud has created a chasm. On Breitbart, one commentator noted how Trump was 'sticking his finger in the eye of his biggest donor and that never happens'. In the American Spectator, one writer opined that Musk did not elect Trump: 'the American people did.' But in the pages of the Washington Examiner, Musk's stance on the bill was praised because Trump's budget plan 'deserves to die'. 'I don't mind Elon turning against me, but he should have done so months ago,' Trump wrote to cap off a series of posts and public comments about Musk. Musk has 'lost his mind', the president said in a TV interview Friday. So far, Republican officials are lining up behind Trump. 'President Trump has done more than any person in my lifetime to earn the trust of the movement he leads,' JD Vance said. If Musk ultimately loses, he could take his money and run elsewhere. He floated the idea of creating a third political party, a prospect that's been tried many times before but without the wealth infusion and bully pulpit he'd offer to the cause. Democrats, themselves quite reliant on rich donors, will lobby for him to switch sides. The Democratic representative Ro Khanna suggested the party should 'be in a dialogue' with Musk. Although Khanna, who represents Silicon Valley and has called for the left to embrace economic populism, saw intense backlash against his comments from his party, he doubled down. 'If Biden had a big supporter criticize him, Trump would have hugged him the next day,' he wrote on X. 'When we refused to meet with @RobertKennedyJr, Trump embraced him & won. We can be the party of sanctimonious lectures, or the party of FDR that knows how to win & build a progressive majority.'
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Layoffs sweep America as AI leads job cut 'bloodbath'
Elon Musk and hundreds of other tech mavens wrote an open letter two years ago warning AI would 'automate away all the jobs' and upend society. And it seems as if we should have listened to them. Layoffs are sweeping America, nixing thousands of roles at Microsoft, Walmart, and other titans, with the newly unemployed speaking of a'bloodbath' on the scale of the pandemic. This time it's not blue-collar and factory workers facing the ax - it's college grads with white-collar roles in tech, finance, law, and consulting. Entry-level jobs are vanishing the fastest, stoking fears of recession and a generation of disillusioned graduates left stranded with CVs no one wants. Graduates are now more likely to be unemployed than others, data has shown. Chatbots have already taken over data entry and customer service posts. Next-generation 'agentic' AI can solve problems, adapt, and work independently. These 'smartbots' are already spotting market trends, running logistics operations, writing legal contracts, and diagnosing patients. The markets have seen the future: AI investment funds are growing by as much as 60 per cent a year. 'The AI layoffs have begun, and they're not stopping,' says tech entrepreneur Alex Finn. Luddites who don't embrace the tech 'will be completely irrelevant in the next five years,' he posted on X. Procter & Gamble, which makes diapers, laundry detergent, and other household items, this week said it would cut 7,000 jobs, or about 15 per cent of non-manufacturing roles. Its two-year restructuring plan involves shedding managers who can be automated away. Microsoft last month announced a cull of 6,000 staff - about three per cent of its workforce - targeting managerial flab, after a smaller round of performance-related cuts in January. LA-based tech entrepreneur Jason Shafton said the software giant's layoffs spotlight a trend 'redefining' the job market. 'If AI saves each person 10 per cent of their time (and let's be real, it's probably more), what does that mean for a company of 200,000?' he wrote. Retail titan Walmart, America's biggest private employer, is slashing 1,500 tech, sales, and advertising jobs in a streamlining effort. Citigroup, cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike, Disney, online education firm Chegg, Amazon, and Warner Bros. Discovery have culled dozens or even hundreds of their workers in recent weeks. Musk himself led a federal sacking spree during his 130-day stint at the Department of Government Efficiency, which ended on May 30. Federal agencies lost some 135,000 to firings and voluntary resignation under his watch, and 150,000 more roles are set to be mothballed. Employers had already announced 220,000 job cuts by the end of February, the highest layoff rate seen since 2009. In announcing cuts, executives often talk about restructuring and tough economic headwinds. Many are spooked by President Donald Trump's on-and-off tariffs, which sent stock markets into free-fall and prompted CEOs to second-guess their long-term plans. Others say something deeper is happening, as companies embrace the next-generation models of chatbots and AI. Robots and machines have for decades usurped factory workers. AI chatbots have more recently replaced routine, repetitive, data entry, and customer service roles. A new and more sophisticated technology - called Agentic AI - now operates more independently: perceiving the environment, setting goals, making plans, and executing them. AI-powered software now writes reports, analyzes spreadsheets, creates legal contracts, designs logos, and even drafts press releases, all in seconds. Banks are axing graduate recruitment schemes. Law firms are replacing paralegals with AI-driven tools. Even tech startups, the birthplace of innovation, are swapping junior developers for code-writing bots. Managers increasingly seek to become 'AI first' and test whether tasks can be done by AI before hiring a human. That's now company policy at Shopify and is how fintech firm Klarna shrank its headcount by 40 per cent, CEO Sebastian Siemiatkowski told CNBC last month. Experienced workers are encouraged to automate tasks and get more work done; recent graduates are struggling to get their foot in the door. From a distance, the job market looks relatively buoyant, with unemployment holding steady at 4.2 per cent for the third consecutive month, the Labor Department reported on Friday. But it's unusually high - close to 6 per cent - among recent graduates. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York recently said job prospects for these workers had 'deteriorated noticeably'. That spells trouble not just for young workers, but for the long-term health of businesses - and the economy. Economists warn of an AI-induced downturn, as millions lose jobs, spending plummets, and social unrest festers. It's been dubbed an industrial revolution for the modern era, but one that's measured in years, not decades. Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic, one of the world's most powerful AI firms, says we're at the start of a storm. AI could wipe out half of all entry-level white-collar jobs - and spike unemployment to 10-20 per cent in the next one to five years, he told Axios. Lawmakers have their heads in the sand and must stop 'sugar-coating' the grim reality of the late 2020s, Amodei said. 'Most of them are unaware that this is about to happen,' he said. 'It sounds crazy, and people just don't believe it.' Frustrations: Sacked workers have taken to social media to vent their frustrations about the new tech crunch Young people who've been culled are taking to social media to vent their anger as the door to a middle-class lifestyle closes on them. Patrick Lyons calls it 'jarring and unexpected' how he lost his Austin-based program managing job in an 'emotionless business decision' by Microsoft. 'There's nothing the 6,000 of us could have done to prevent this,' he posted. A young woman coder, known by her TikTok handle dotisinfluencing, posts a daily video diary about the 'f***ing massacre' of layoffs at her tech company as 'AI is taking over'. Her job search is going badly. She claims one recruiter appeared more interested in taking her out for drinks than offering a paycheck. 'I feel like s***,' she added. Ben Wolfson, a young Meta software engineer, says entry-level software jobs dried up in 2023. 'Big tech doesn't want you, bro,' he said. Critics say universities are churning out graduates into a market that simply doesn't need them. A growing number of young professionals say they feel betrayed - promised opportunity, but handed a future of 'AI-enhanced' redundancy. Others are eyeing an opportunity for a payout to try something different. Donald King posted a recording of the meeting in which he was unceremoniously laid off from his data science job at consulting firm PwC. 'RIP my AI factory job,' he said. 'I built the thing that destroyed me.' He now posts from Porto, in Portugal - a popular spot for digital nomads - where he's founded a marketing startup. Industry insiders say it won't be long before another generation of AI arrives to automate new sectors. As AI improves, the difference between 'safe' and 'automatable' work gets blurrier by the day. Human workers are advised to stay one step ahead and build AI into their own jobs to increase productivity. Optimists point to such careers as radiology - where humans initially looked set to be outmoded by machines that could speedily read medical scans and pinpoint tumors. But the layoffs didn't happen. The technology has been adopted - but radiologists adapted, using AI to sharpen images and automate some tasks, and boost productivity. Some radiology units even expanded their increasingly efficient human workforce. Others say AI is a scapegoat for 2025's job cuts - that executives are downsizing for economic reasons, and blaming technology so as not to panic shareholders. But for those who have lost their jobs, the future looks bleak.
