TheChek News Flow

It’s not just because of the SpaceX IPO. AI companies are getting impatient with building data centers on Earth, or at least in the U.S.

Every so often, prominent figures in tech begin amplifying the same topic so energetically that it makes you wonder if they’re all on the same group chat (or if the hive mind from “Pluribus,” the Apple TV+ sci-fi show, is a real thing). One such moment occurred this past week, when it became hard to escape the deafening online chatter about data centers in space.

That was in large part thanks to Elon Musk, who began promoting the concept through a series of posts on X. It isn’t just Musk hyping the concept, though. Amazon executive chair and founder Jeff Bezos and former Google CEO Eric Schmidt have both been big believers for a while. Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang has also jumped on the bandwagon.

Last month, Google, one of the biggest cloud providers, said it plans to launch prototype satellites by 2027 to see how its AI chips, called tensor processing units, perform in space. And this week, a space data center startup, Starcloud, said it had trained the first large language model in space aboard a demonstration satellite outfitted with an Nvidia graphics processing unit.

On one hand, this is an exhilarating vision, especially if you’re a sci-fi nerd. But there’s also a more pessimistic interpretation of the sudden enthusiasm of so many smart, powerful AI barons for sticking data centers in space—namely, they don’t think the U.S. can meet the compute needs of the AI industry on terra firma. That makes sense, as we’ll explain. First, though, we should acknowledge that some of the proponents of data centers in space—Musk in particular—have other agendas.

As we first reported 10 days ago, Musk’s rocket company, SpaceX, is currently eyeing the second half of next year for an initial public offering. SpaceX already had a good story to tell investors—about the dominance of its rocket-launching business and Starlink satellite internet service. Adding the idea that SpaceX could accelerate the launch of data centers into space allows the company to tap into the mother of all investor narratives, AI—just as Musk has sought to do with his other public company, Tesla, through initiatives like its Optimus humanoid robot.

To say that the vision of orbiting data centers has its skeptics would be a radical understatement. Radiation will cook their AI chips, these critics say. Servicing them when they malfunction or replacing the chips when they’re obsolete will be, shall we say, interesting.

“I have no idea how sending things to space is cheaper than building them on the ground, but [I] have also never built a data center,” one space company executive said this week via text when asked for his stance on space data centers.

Still, Musk and others seem very confident that they are inevitable. The reason they most commonly cite is the free, uninterrupted solar power and cooling that space provides, which could theoretically make the operational costs of a space data center much lower than on Earth. Also, it’s getting cheaper to transport objects into space.

Currently, the cheapest way to lob something into orbit is on board SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy rocket, at a cost of about $1,500 per kilogram, according to estimates from the Center for Strategic and International Studies. That figure has fallen dramatically from past decades on an inflation-adjusted basis, thanks to the reusability of SpaceX’s rockets.

Launch costs are likely to fall even further, which could make the expense of transporting loads of GPUs and solar arrays into orbit more economically viable. By some estimates, the cost of launching payloads into orbit aboard Starship, SpaceX’s gargantuan new rocket, could drop to as low as $100 per kilogram in a few years. SpaceX still has a lot of kinks to iron out with that rocket, though.

Competition from Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin and other rocket startups could further drive down launch costs. Blue Origin successfully delivered payloads into space last month on New Glenn, its new reusable rocket, and it has a team working on space data centers, according to a person with knowledge of the matter (The Wall Street Journal previously reported on the effort).

“My estimate is that the cost-effectiveness of AI in space will be overwhelmingly better than AI on the ground,” Musk said last month at a conference.

‘At the end of the day, people don’t want these data centers in their backyards.’

Think about that for a minute. If Musk is sincere, his statement says a lot about the costs and obstacles to building data centers on Earth—or at least in the U.S. and other Western nations—not just the benefits of and falling barriers to shooting them into space.

In the U.S., one of the biggest impediments to building data centers is the surging demand for electricity. In a recent report, Morgan Stanley said U.S. data centers could fall 20% short of the power they need over the next several years as a result of exploding AI growth. The Department of Energy has warned that without meaningful new sources of power, a mismatch in electricity supply and data center–led demand could lead to many more blackouts by 2030. (China, in contrast, is bursting with cheap electricity, deepening fears in the U.S. that its biggest AI rival has the upper hand.)

And then there’s the grassroots AI backlash percolating in some communities, including those who worry the facilities will spike their electricity bills, divert their water and blight their landscapes. A report earlier this year from Data Center Watch, a research project run by AI intelligence company 10a Labs , found that bipartisan opponents have blocked or delayed $64 billion in U.S. data center projects.

Space data centers, in theory, can sidestep those hassles through what Baiju Bhatt, a co-founder of Robinhood, calls “infrastructure bypass.” Bhatt is now CEO of Aetherflux, a startup that announced plans this week to launch its first orbital data center satellite in 2027. He says data centers can take years to build in the U.S., between permitting, construction and securing of power to meet the facility’s needs. And then there are the NIMBY-related delays.

“At the end of the day, people don’t want these data centers in their backyards,” said Bhatt. “We need to find an alternative to building so many power plants in places [where] people live.”

EngineAI robot delivers forceful Bruce Lee-style kicks, while Musk’s Optimus jogs a few steps and falls over while handing out water bottle

The odds seemed impossible: a shoestring Chinese start-up founded in 2023 with just 1 million yuan (US$142,000) taking on Elon Musk – tech legend, disrupter in space and CEO of Tesla – who is valued at half a trillion dollars.

But in less than two years, EngineAI Robotics, led by CEO Zhao Tongyang, created the T800 – a robot that delivers Bruce Lee-style roundhouse kicks with the force of a small car – and, under the instruction of smiling engineers and scientists, tried it first on the boss himself.

That is why when Musk’s Optimus recently “set a personal record” by jogging a few steps, Chinese web users shrugged and laughed. The scepticism deepened when, during a live demo, Optimus fell backwards while trying to hand over a water bottle.

EngineAI launched its first model, the SA01, last year. Its T800, which boasts 450 Newton metres of peak torque, humanlike dexterity, and a solid-state battery enabling four to five hours of intense operation, will be ready for mass production by 2026.

Backed by China’s vast engineering talent pool and the Pearl River Delta’s plug-and-play supply chains, start-ups like EngineAI are turning sci-fi into reality at breakneck speed.

While American robots remain mostly in labs, Chinese firms are field-testing theirs across stadiums, factories and martial arts arenas in an industrial revolution fuelled by scale, speed and system.

Tesla’s Optimus team released a four-second video on platform X last Wednesday showing its humanoid robot “Optimus” running, claiming it had set a new “personal record”.

However, many Chinese viewers responded bluntly, stating that “it seems unremarkable” or “there have been too many similar products before this”.

When it comes to humanoid robots, Chinese audiences have grown accustomed to a dazzling array of promotional claims.

Numerous Chinese robotics companies have long mastered running gaits for their robots, even breaking into public awareness through topics like robot marathons and robot sports competitions.

More recently, the focus has shifted towards more complex movements such as dancing and martial arts – for example, the roundhouse kick performed by EngineAI’s T800.

Some viewers defended Optimus, arguing that “Kung fu moves are preprogrammed, which is very different from AI acting autonomously and adapting on the fly.”

But whether Optimus possessed true autonomous capability soon faced more direct scepticism.

During a demonstration titled “Autonomy Visualised” in Miami on December 8, Optimus lost its balance and fell backwards while trying to hand a bottle of water to an audience member.

The way it collapsed however, closely resembled the movements of a human operator removing a VR headset, fuelling suspicions that it was remotely controlled rather than operating autonomously.

The incident drew relentless mockery online. One user quipped, “Musk estimated Optimus would cost around 20,000 US dollars – does that include the necessary remote operator and supporting equipment, or are those extra?”

Such questions touch on a core issue: if even a basic task like handing over a bottle requires real-time human teleoperation, Optimus still has a long way to go before realising Musk’s vision of a general-purpose robot.

In contrast, robotics companies rooted in China’s manufacturing ecosystems are advancing rapidly, leveraging supply chain advantages and the country’s deep engineering talent pool.

EngineAI Robotics, one of the main players in the industry, started on a shoestring budget.

“When the company launched in 2023, its total start-up capital – including help from friends – was only between one and two million yuan,” founder Zhao Tongyang said in an interview in February.

Despite having only enough resources to hire junior engineers, the company insisted on developing both its hardware and software entirely in-house.

At the time, Tesla’s Optimus was already capable of visual-based object classification, enjoyed far greater research and development funding and commanded global attention.

EngineAI’s first product was the bipedal robot SA01, which entered the market at an industry-low price of 38,500 yuan in 2024.

Zhao attributed the cost control to the complete supply chain and strong manufacturing capabilities of China’s Pearl River Delta region.

“We designed core components and placed orders directly with factories, significantly reducing procurement costs,” he said.

Earlier this month, EngineAI released its new-generation humanoid robot, the T800, whose peak torque of 450 N·m exceeds many household car engines, and features humanlike hands capable of picking up a light bulb.

Powered by a high-performance solid-state battery, its overall physical performance surpasses that of 90 per cent of adult males, giving it genuine productivity attributes, at a starting price of 180,000 yuan.

Launching the T800, EngineAI also announced it had entered commercial mass production, with small-batch deliveries expected to start next year.

The company has its own production line in Shenzhen and also plans to build a global manufacturing centre in Zhengzhou, Henan province, capitalising on the collaborative efficiency and rapid responsiveness of domestic supply chains.

This tight integration from design to manufacturing speeds up development and cuts costs.

In contrast, during a shareholders’ meeting on November 6, Musk said that the Optimus production line would launch next year, with an estimated price tag of US$20,000 to US$30,000.

While Tesla still holds advantages in brand power, funding and AI expertise, Chinese teams have a clear edge in getting robots built quickly and affordably.

Industry analysts note that China’s robotics companies benefit from a strong supply chain and plenty of engineers. This lets them develop and launch products faster and cheaper.

“China’s strong industrial base formed through previous accumulation provides a reliable supply chain, while its deep pool of AI and robotics talent gives the country key advantages in developing humanoid robots,” Wu Yiming, a researcher at the Xian Institute of Optics and Precision Mechanics of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, told state-run Guangming Daily.

Beyond industrial and supply chain advantages, China also benefits from diverse application scenarios and strong market demand.

“Rich industrial activities have accumulated multi-industry data, providing a broad testing ground, data foundation and market space for the development of humanoid robots,” Xu Man, a senior engineer at the Chinese Institute of Electronics, told the paper.

There will be, no doubt, many occupations that we can’t even imagine today. But here are four that seem possible.

A lot of people are scared about the future of AI.

Artificial-intelligence technology is going to transform how we live and work, in ways we can’t begin to imagine today. That means, yes, it will make some jobs obsolete. And it is going to transform all of our jobs, sometimes leaving today’s workers struggling to keep up.

But AI is also going to create opportunities—whole new jobs that center on the technology and the advances it enables. Speculating about which jobs may be in our AI future is difficult; there will be no doubt many jobs that we can’t imagine today. But predicting is still a worthy exercise. To that end, here is a look at four possible jobs that AI may create in the years ahead.

AI systems can be inscrutable. We all have experienced when they churn out unexpected answers that even their designers can’t fully explain—or sometimes just make stuff up.

But it also can be tough to understand the basics of how AI fits into individual organizations and jobs, things as basic as: Who makes sure the systems are kept up-to-date and functioning properly? Stakeholders will need those answers as AI takes on more responsibility for tasks like judging loan applications, recommending medical treatments and accepting or rejecting résumés.

Enter the AI explainer, an expert who understands the technology deeply and can translate it into plain language for managers, judges, regulators and others. Imagine a lawsuit involving a traffic accident—an autonomous city bus hits a privately owned self-driving vehicle. A judge and jury will need to have some level of understanding about how the technology works: Were both vehicles’ software up-to-date? If not, is it the owner’s fault—or perhaps the bus maker or software provider?

The parties involved in the case might all hire their own AI explainers to give expert testimony—and, inevitably, put their own side’s spin on the information.

The different varieties of AI can also be baffling to newcomers. Companies are going to face confusing decisions about which type of tech works best for different tasks—and getting the answers right will be crucial. An AI chooser will help clear up the confusion. This expert will help companies sort through the variety of AI systems available and figure out what jobs they are each best suited to handle. Then the chooser will guide the company through the process of buying and installing the tech.

Imagine a retailer that wants AI to take on a whole range of tasks. The expert might make the case that predictive AI—which can analyze data to figure out trends and tendencies—could figure out what customers want based on their buying history. If the retailer wanted help in developing marketing materials, the expert might recommend generative AI, which can take data and implement it in creative ways.

We already see companies struggling to handle issues like bias in AI decisions. Auditors and cleaners would work hand in hand to spot and resolve those types of problems. The AI auditor, for instance, would perform regular checkups—weekly, monthly or even daily, depending on the industry—to see if the AI systems produced results that were unfairly skewed in some direction. The cleaner would adjust the system to eliminate those problems, such as training it with a new set of data that helps eliminate its bias.

As AI works its way further into people’s jobs, workers are going to need lots of training in the new technology. And we will get a new type of training to meet that demand. Unlike conventional corporate teaching, which relies on in-person sessions or generic online courses, a new breed of training specialist will leverage AI itself to upskill workers. The trainer would use the technology to figure out what teaching style works best for individuals and tailor the lessons to fit. This could be especially valuable for midcareer workers who need to rapidly acquire new skills without returning to formal education, or for workers in smaller companies that lack the resources for extensive training programs.

But these jobs are just the beginning. AI will create countless other new roles, in industries that don’t even exist yet. The future will certainly bring a lot of uncertainty—but a lot of opportunity as well.

Key Points

• Ellisons short of cash: Larry Ellison is funding only a small portion; Middle Eastern sovereign wealth funds are supplying most of the money.
• Hostile bid vs Netflix: Paramount Skydance claims its all-cash offer is safer and undervalues WBD’s cable assets less than the Netflix deal.
• Political & control concerns: Gulf funding raises scrutiny over foreign influence, but investors focus on cash and WBD stock is soaring.

Zelenskyy says Kyiv still needs US and European protection guarantees ahead of Berlin talks

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has said he is ready to give up on demands for Nato membership in exchange for security guarantees from the US and Europe, in a move aimed at advancing peace talks in Berlin on Sunday. 

US President Donald Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff and son-in-law Jared Kushner have pushed Ukraine to accept painful concessions, including ceding frontline territory to Russia, ahead of talks with Zelenskyy and Ukraine’s European allies on the White House plan to end Russia’s invasion.

Ukraine has admitted that it was unlikely to join Nato in the foreseeable future due to strong opposition from Russia, which has long demanded that the transatlantic alliance pledge to halt its eastward expansion as a condition for ending the war.

But Zelenskyy told reporters on Sunday that Ukraine still requires security guarantees from the US and Europe, similar to Nato’s Article 5 clause of mutual protection for any member under attack.

“We are talking about bilateral security guarantees between Ukraine and the United States — namely, Article 5–like guarantees . . . as well as security guarantees for us from our European partners and from other countries such as Canada, Japan and others,” Zelenskyy told journalists in a WhatsApp chat. “And this is already a compromise on our part.”

Zelenskyy said Ukraine has yet to receive a response from Washington to revised proposals sent earlier this week from Kyiv after consultations with European leaders. 

“The plan will certainly not be one that everyone likes. There are many compromises in one or another version of the plan,” he said.

Russia has said it would probably reject all the proposals from Ukraine and Europe, throwing doubt on whether Trump’s push to end the nearly four-year war could succeed.

Yuri Ushakov, Putin’s foreign policy adviser, said any Ukrainian and European suggestions for the plan were “unlikely to be constructive” and Russia would have “sharp objections” if the US adopted them. “It’s not like there’s going to be anything good there,” Ushakov said in comments broadcast on state television on Sunday.

Both sides appeared to reject Trump’s proposal that all troops be withdrawn from the Donbas region to create a “free economic zone” in parts of eastern Ukraine now held by Kyiv. The proposal would require Ukraine to withdraw from “fortress belt” of cities that Moscow’s forces have failed to capture in more than 11 years of war.

Zelenskyy said on Sunday he did “not consider this fair”.

“If Ukrainian troops withdraw five to 10 kilometres, for example, then why should Russian troops not also withdraw deeper into the occupied territories by the same distance?” he asked. “This is a question to which there is still no answer, but it is extremely sensitive and very heated.”

Zelenskyy said the “only fair and possible option” for a true peace is that “the sides stop where they are, and then try to resolve all broader issues through diplomacy”.

“We stand where we stand,” he added. “That is precisely a ceasefire.”

Ushakov also seemed to oppose the demilitarised zone plan, saying this week that Russia would only accept full control over the Donbas. Russia, he added, has not discussed a “Korean scenario”, which could involve freezing the current frontline, with the US.

Ushakov also rejected Zelenskyy’s earlier suggestions that Ukraine could regain control of Crimea, which Putin annexed in 2014, or join Nato. Both proposals “one million per cent won’t happen”, Ushakov said.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz is hosting talks with other European security officials on Sunday night ahead of negotiations with Zelenskyy, the US delegation and European leaders on Monday. Europe is pushing to regain influence over the Ukraine talks, from which the bloc has largely been sidelined despite their far-reaching consequences for the continent.

In a speech in Bavaria on Saturday, Merz compared Putin’s war in Ukraine to Adolf Hitler’s annexation of Czechoslovakia’s German-speaking border regions in 1938, to which western allies failed to react.

“This war of aggression by Russia against Ukraine is a war against Europe. And if Ukraine falls, it won’t stop, just as the Sudetenland was not enough in 1938. Putin won’t stop,” Merz said.

T-Mobile and Verizon are looking to lure competitors’ customers, while AT&T is taking legal action

The wireless wars are heating up.

AT&T T 1.15%increase; green up pointing triangle, T-Mobile US and Verizon Communications have long traded barbs over who offers the most reliable service, best price and broadest wireless-service coverage. Now some are upping the ante with explicit poaching efforts—and litigation.

This fall, both Verizon VZ 1.67%increase; green up pointing triangle and T-Mobile TMUS -0.09%decrease; red down pointing triangle launched promotions designed to lure in their competitors’ customers.

Verizon’s “Bring Your Bill” campaign invites AT&T and T-Mobile customers to upload their bills or bring them in-store to get a counteroffer from Verizon. Last month, T-Mobile introduced “Easy Switch,” which asked AT&T and Verizon customers to share their login and password, then checked their rates with an automated tool and provided a personalized competing offer.

T-Mobile’s new feature kicked off a technical cat-and-mouse game. AT&T twice implemented new security measures to block the tool, then sued T-Mobile late last month in a federal court in Texas. It alleged the Easy Switch tool intruded into AT&T’s computer systems and violated its terms of service “to harvest private customer account information and AT&T business information.”

AT&T requested an injunction to prevent T-Mobile from accessing its computer systems and asked that the court order T-Mobile to destroy any data it obtained.

Verizon has also said T-Mobile’s feature poses customer privacy concerns but isn’t a party to the lawsuit. T-Mobile has since disabled the Easy Switch online tool, but maintained in court filings that the feature was lawful.

A T-Mobile spokeswoman said AT&T was blocking the tool to make it harder for customers to leave and said the litigation was an effort to limit consumer choice.

Requesting customer credentials for a rival is unprecedented, according to Roger Entner, founder of telecom research firm Recon Analytics.

Access to so much price information could give carriers the ability to undercut competitors with razor-sharp precision. For instance, T-Mobile could customize its offer for each individual, just a smidgen below competitors’ rates, rather than roll out broad-based pricing plans.

Cancellation rates, known as “disconnects,” have risen for major wireless carriers in recent quarters, a sign that consumers are more willing to jump between providers for the best deal, according to data from UBS. The companies have said they want to make it easier for customers to switch—in the interest of expediting their own growth.

With Easy Switch, T-Mobile told prospective customers they could switch their service in 15 minutes without even having to call their current carrier. “In as little as one mimosa, you could switch,” T-Mobile’s chief operating officer, Jon Freier, said in a promotional video.

AT&T, T-Mobile and Verizon regularly take direct swipes at one another in splashy ad campaigns, then lodge complaints about their rivals’ commercials with the National Advertising Division, an industry watchdog that referees disputes over claims like false advertising. The challenges often result in providers adjusting the claims in their ads, but can also be referred to state and federal authorities.

The ad challenges themselves are even becoming a focal point of new commercials. In a spot that AT&T introduced in October, actor Luke Wilson pulls a newspaper out of a tumbleweed and reads, “T-Mobile most challenged for deceptive ads.”

An NAD spokeswoman declined to confirm whether the ad’s claim about T-Mobile was accurate. T-Mobile said AT&T’s recent ad campaign was deceptive.

Still, the NAD asked AT&T to pull the commercial the day after it began airing, determining that the ad ran afoul of its policy prohibiting participants from using the ad-challenge process itself for promotional purposes. AT&T then sued BBB National Programs, of which NAD is a division, accusing the group of seeking to muzzle free speech.

Meanwhile, on Wednesday the NAD referred T-Mobile to the Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general for declining to participate in an NAD inquiry after AT&T challenged T-Mobile advertising from November 2024 that claimed superior 5G capacity compared with its competitors.

AT&T and the Federal Trade Commission didn’t respond to requests for comment.

T-Mobile said its challenged claims are true and declined to participate in the NAD inquiry because of AT&T’s position that it isn’t bound by NAD rules. “T-Mobile has serious confidentiality concerns with any information that would have to be shared in an NAD proceeding initiated by AT&T,” a T-Mobile spokeswoman said.

AT&T’s request for an injunction that would prevent T-Mobile from re-enabling its Easy Switch tool is pending. The National Advertising Division hasn’t responded to AT&T’s lawsuit.

The carriers are using the performance claims and account-access moves to show their personalities in the escalating marketing fight, said George Heudorfer, practitioner in residence at the University of New Haven’s Pompea College of Business. He likened it to the cola wars of the 1980s—but warned it may not be a winning strategy.

“In the end, the carrier that wins won’t be the one with the loudest ad,” Heudorfer said. “It’ll be the one that makes wireless feel simple, fair and trustworthy.”