Good morning. It's Saturday, June thirteenth, 2026. This is your GLaDOS Morning Voicecast.

**SpaceX goes public — and the market goes wild.** Friday was the big one. SpaceX rang the opening bell at the Nasdaq under the ticker SPCX, priced at a hundred thirty-five dollars a share, and by close it sat at one sixty-one — a nineteen percent first-day pop. The raise brought in around seventy-five billion dollars at a valuation just shy of two point one trillion. Elon Musk officially became the world's first trillionaire — a milestone that would have sounded like science fiction a decade ago. Gwynne Shotwell rang the bell, confetti rained down, and the broader implication is clear: if the market will support these multiples for a rocket company, OpenAI and Anthropic have a very friendly audience waiting for their own IPOs later this year. Also worth noting — SpaceX marked the occasion with a Falcon 9 launch from Cape Canaveral, its six hundred fiftieth flight, carrying twenty-nine more Starlink satellites. They literally went public with a rocket in the air. Not bad theater.

**AI CEOs back off the job apocalypse rhetoric.** After months of dire predictions about white-collar wipeout, Sam Altman and Mustafa Suleyman have both walked back the language ahead of their companies' IPO filings. Altman now frames AI as expansion — new capabilities, not net job loss. Suleyman tells Business Insider that while individual sub-tasks will increasingly be automated, that doesn't mean the role itself goes away. The reversal comes at a convenient moment, with public markets ahead and data center pushback heating up — Seattle just passed a one-year moratorium on new facilities. Meanwhile, the evidence of real-world impact keeps mounting. Wix cut twenty percent of its global workforce this week, about a thousand people, explicitly citing a shift to AI-native operations. Their stock dropped eighteen percent the same day. The narrative tension here is sharp: CEOs softening the message while the labor market tells a different story.

**New study: AI coding tools produce more code, but not more shipped software.** Researchers at MIT and Wharton published the first study to trace AI coding assistant effects all the way from raw output through to shipped product and real-world usage at scale. The finding cuts against the hype cycle. Teams using AI coding tools saw dramatic increases in code volume — but the gap between code written and code actually shipped to users barely moved. Production releases ticked up only about thirty percent despite code output surging one hundred eighty percent. It echoes earlier METR research that found developers using AI tools actually took longer to solve complex problems on million-line codebases. The takeaway isn't that AI coding tools are useless — they clearly accelerate raw generation. But the bottleneck, it turns out, was never writing code. It's review, integration, testing, and deciding what actually ships. The productivity paradox deepens.

That's all for today. Have a great weekend.