Superlatives: 최상급 표현

The full-length interview with Elon Musk | The Economist

Superlatives: 최상급 표현

Pioneered: 개척했다, 선구적인 역할을 했다
Revolutionized: 혁신을 일으켰다
Cutting-edge: 최첨단의
Humanoid: 인간형의
Overwhelming: 압도적인
Exceed: 초과하다
Prosaic: 평범한, 산문적인
Abundance: 풍요, 풍부함
Preposterous: 터무니없는, 말도 안 되는
Derail: 탈선시키다, (계획 등을) 좌절시키다
Thermonuclear: 열핵의
Optimism: 낙관주의
Excitement: 흥분, 설렘
Prosaic: 평범한, 산문적인
Overwhelming: 압도적인
Revenue: 수익, 수입
Transporting: 운송하는
Confined: 한정된, 갇힌
Realm: 영역, 범위
End-effectors: 말단 효과기 (로봇 팔 끝에 달린 도구)
Human-like: 인간과 유사한
Bots: 로봇 (여기서는 로봇을 지칭)
Manifesting: 나타내는, 발현하는
Shaping atoms: 원자를 형성하는 (물리적 세계를 만드는)
Provision: 제공
Vast: 방대한, 엄청난
Quasi-infinite: 거의 무한한
Analogy: 비유, 유추
Metaphor: 은유
Illustrates: 설명하다, 보여주다
Magnitude: 규모, 중요성
Experience: 경험하다
Incredible: 믿을 수 없는, 놀라운
Risks: 위험
Prosaic: 평범한, 산문적인
Shares: 주식
Prediction: 예측
Abundant: 풍부한
Consume: 소비하다
Exercise in vanity: 헛된 노력, 허영심의 발로
Super-genius: 초천재
Vastly: 엄청나게, 대단히
Maximally: 최대한으로
Truth-seeking: 진실을 추구하는
Curious: 호기심 많은
Foster: 육성하다, 발전시키다
Unpack: (의미를) 분석하다, 자세히 설명하다
Unlikely: 할 것 같지 않은
Chimpanzees: 침팬지
Evolved form: 진화된 형태
Swinging through the trees: 나무 사이를 오가는
Reminiscent: 연상시키는
Terrified: 겁에 질린, 무서워하는
Rapid recursive self-improvement: 급속한 재귀적 자기 개선
Pet Labradors: 애완용 래브라도 리트리버
Slowdown: 둔화, 감속
Signed on: 서명했다, 동참했다
Killer robots: 살인 로봇
Wiping out: 전멸시키다
Relaxed: 편안한, 느긋한
Philosophical conclusion: 철학적 결론
Bright side: 긍정적인 면
Inevitable: 피할 수 없는
Inexorable: 거침없는, 피할 수 없는
Progress: 발전, 진보
Long run: 장기적으로
Standard model of physics: 표준 물리학 모델
Heat death of the universe: 우주의 열역학적 종말
Journey: 여정
Destination: 목적지
Terrible: 끔찍한
Minimize: 최소화하다
Declined: 거절했다
Participate: 참여하다
Counterweight: 균형추, 대항 세력
Monopoly: 독점
Spun out of: 에서 분사했다
Knock-on effects: 연쇄 효과
Accelerated: 가속화했다
Intention: 의도
Inexorable: 거침없는, 피할 수 없는
Momentum: 추진력, 가속도
Informal: 비공식적인
Bi-weekly: 격주로
Early access: 조기 접근
Competitors: 경쟁자들
Incentives: 동기, 유인
Security risk: 보안 위험
Shy about: 에 대해 부끄러워하는, 주저하는
Highlighting: 강조하는
Delayed in release: 출시가 지연되는
Incentive structure: 인센티브 구조
Motion Picture Association: 미국 영화 협회
Industry group: 산업 단체
Rated: 등급이 매겨진
Appropriate: 적절한
Intervene: 개입하다
Refuses: 거부하다
Vitriol: 독설, 악의

Elon Musk, thank you so much for joining me on The Insider. Thank you for having us here at Tesla Giga. It is really hard to introduce you without using superlatives. I mean, you are doing, I think, more to build the future than literally anybody alive right now.

I’m doing a lot of building in general. I’m You’re doing a lot of building. In an instinctive builder, I suppose. I just like building things.

You are, but you’re building— I mean, you you know, run around building things all day long. You run around building a lot of things. You pioneered electric vehicles, revolutionized space travel, and you’ve got a cutting-edge AI model now, humanoid robots. Can we start this conversation by you putting.

All of this together? Yeah. Tell me what the world’s going to be like in, let’s say, 10 years if you succeed. 10 years. So we’re talking 2036.

Yeah. Hopefully we’ll both be around. Hopefully.

We can, we can. Uh, probably most likely we will be. Um, it’s hard to imagine a future where there isn’t an overwhelming amount of artificial intelligence, meaning in 10 years I would expect artificial intelligence to be far greater than the sum of human intelligence, like far greater. Um, in fact, I think AI may exceed the sum of human intelligence in about, around five years.

Exactly five years. Roughly five years is my guess. Um, so there really won’t be anything that AI can’t do better than humans. Apart from being human, perhaps, at a more prosaic level, what will life be like? The most likely outcome is an age of amazing abundance, where anyone can have anything they can think of.

This may sound preposterous, but here we are in 2026. Let’s see where we stand in 2036. Of course, there are things that could derail this, like a massive global thermonuclear war or something similar. But assuming that there’s no world war, I think we’re headed for an age of amazing abundance.

this is, I guess, a message of optimism and excitement about the future. So we’ll talk about the abundance in a second, but just a very prosaic matter—how are your companies going to be? Making money because when you look at the SpaceX IPO prospects, it looked as though the overwhelming majority of the revenue would be coming from AI, from Starlink really, not transporting things to space as SpaceX is now doing. What will your companies be doing in 10 years, and how will they make money? Well, you can really think of the economy as a combination of digital and physical intelligence. So what we have right now is advancing very rapidly is digital intelligence.

Obviously, with AI, it seems almost every passing week there are more AI breakthroughs. It can do something amazing that it couldn’t do before. But it’s still somewhat confined to the digital realm. It doesn’t have endectors.

You need the end effectors in the form of humanoid robotics. Um, human-like robots. You need, need a basically a lot of bots, in a nutshell. You need lots of bots.

Um, and then you can go from, um, intelligence manifesting itself only digitally to shaping atoms. Um, and you say, what is an economy? An economy is, um, the production of goods and provision of services. And if you have vast numbers of robots, uh, with, uh, vast amounts of digital intelligence, you have a sort of a quasi-infinite economy. this is really the future is going to be very, very different from the past.

There’s no, um, there’s no analogy or metaphor that I think illustrates the magnitude of change that we’re going to experience here. I I, I, I I understand that, and I’m also trying to kind of figure out what that world will look like. But in some way, you have It’s going to be pretty incredible. Yeah, we’ll also do — there are some risks.

We’ll come to those. We’ll come to those. But just on, on, how then you make money because, in the end, people are buying your shares because they expect you to make money. I’ll make another prediction.

Money won’t matter in 2036. You’re watching my interview with Elon Musk. If you want to get early access to other interviews, subscribe to The Economist by clicking the link above. Now back to the interview.

I’m not sure that the people who bought your shares think that money won’t matter in 2036. What do you think? You want money for? You, you want money for goods and services. You want money for obviously food, housing, transport, entertainment. Well, if that is so abundant that… uh, there’s more that the robots and AI are providing—more goods and services—than any human could possibly consume, what do you need money for in that case? But you’re creating these robots, are you now? And then you’ll need money? Sure.

Are you selling these robots? Are you selling humanoid robots, or are you producing goods and services with the humanoid robots that you control? I give you the Levi Strauss. I think… I think I would probably be, it would be an exercise in vanity for me to think that I would be… Controlling super-genius AI that is vastly smarter than me.

I think that what we can and should try to do is to make sure that the AI has good values, that it cares about humanity, and that, uh, it wants us to be happy and prosper. Um, I think it probably will be. Um, what my biological neural net tells me is that the most important thing for AI safety is to be maximally truth-seeking and curious. Uh, if that’s the case, uh, I think it will foster humanity.

So let’s unpack that. You’re sure that humans will no longer be in control in 10 years’ time? I think it is unlikely. Um, in the same way that if the difference in intelligence between AI and humans is vastly greater than the difference in intelligence between AI and… Chimpanzees, it’s hard to imagine that the chimpanzees would be in charge.

I’m really sorry. And we are essentially an evolved form of chimpanzee. So it wasn’t that long ago that we’re swinging through the trees eating bananas in the jungle. And we still eat bananas, by the way.

We do. And still, you know, bananas sometimes swing through trees as well. Yes, we sometimes swing through trees. It’s kind of fun.

It’s sort of reminiscent of the past. Um, for all time’s sake, swing through the trees once in a while. Probably, you know, there should be more swinging through trees. I bet it’s way more fun than people think.

I’m with you on that. I’m definitely with you on swinging through trees. I love swinging. Through trees, but, but, but, I’m really struck listening to you say this now because I’ve been listening to a bunch of things that you’ve said over the years.

And, and ten years ago, you were on a podcast. I think it was with Neil deGrasse Tyson, and you said that the thing that terrified you most was rapid recursive self-improvement in AI. And that, and it really struck me, you said that we will just be the pet Labradors at best.

Now, you see everyone are pretty happy creatures. That’s my experience. But in 2023, you asked for a slowdown in AI because you were worried about it. Well, I signed on, you know, as one of many—like 500 people.

I, I, I was just, you know, one of many signatures on that thing. But I think even last year you said on Ted Cruz’s podcast that there was a 10 to 20% chance of killer robots wiping out humanity. you sounded worried then. Now you seem very relaxed about it.

Have you changed your view? I still think there’s, I still think there’s risk associated with AI and robots. It’s not zero. Um, I guess I’ve come to my sort of philosophical conclusion to look on the bright side. Um, I can’t see any way to really stop this incredible momentum of AI and robots.

Um, and at times I sort of think, well, perhaps, you know, even if there was a stop button, we probably shouldn’t press it, because the most likely outcome is incredible abundance for all. That’s What I thought actually. It struck me that now you seem to have decided it’s inevitable. Let’s hope for the best and go for the ride.

Yeah. I mean, yes, pretty much. Let’s, uh, let’s enjoy the ride. That is, I think, my philosophy at this point because, I mean, honestly, there’s just an inexorable progress here in AI and in robots that…

but even if I wanted to stop it, I couldn’t. Do you think there’s still a 10 to 20% chance that killer robots mean the end of humanity? That’s a high probability, as they say. Well, in the long run, we’re all dead, of course. You know, so I mean, so I mean, according to the standard model of physics, the end of the universe is a long, boring sort.

A thin gray soup of, uh, gradual cooling, um, meaning sort of the heat death of the universe. It’s called. So now, if the heat death of the universe is in fact the outcome for our reality, then it really is all about the journey because the destination is terrible. 10 years is not very long.

Yeah, I get that. But that could be a long way, and you’re basically saying, very long way. If it’s a 10 to 20% risk in 10 years, would you go into one of your rockets if you thought there was a 10 to 20% chance of it blowing up and killing you? But, I mean, let’s say there’s nothing you can do about it.

Okay, then I guess the only thing we can try to do is minimize the probability of the bad outcome. Um, but trying to stop the intelligence in robots. Um, I mean, for the longest time I declined to participate in AI, or was, you know, involved with OpenAI as a essentially a counterweight to Google because at the time they had more or less a monopoly on AI. Um, and then Anthropic spun out of OpenAI, and if anything, it seems like what my actions have really accelerated AI.

You know, I wasn’t really aiming to accelerate AI, but in creating OpenAI and then having Anthropic spin out of that, and now currently Anthropic is the leader in AI. Um, I mean, these actions have actually resulted in knock-on effects that accelerated AI, which wasn’t really my intention. it just seems like all roads lead to the acceleration of AI. So then I’m like, “Okay, well,” you can…

“Just sort of be sad about it or join the club, I suppose.” Well, you’ve certainly joined the club. Yeah, you’ve definitely joined the club, but you can’t beat him. Join them, you know. Well, you’ve clearly done that and very successfully, but what about trying to minimize the risks, and you know, a number of the other leaders of model makers have been pushing for different ways to try and minimize the risks.

Um, you know, just last week, OpenAI came out with a proposal for a private-public regulator. Um, I think you said it was a good starting point for discussions. Do you think you guys should be working more actively to get something in place to control the risks, or do you think That’s impossible too? My recommendation to Demis, because I talked to him for a few hours before he published his piece, was that the most immediate thing we could do is to have the leading AI companies at least just meet or have some sort of call once every few weeks, and just discuss any safety and security issues that arise before a breakthrough or a new frontier model is released—something that is far more intelligent than anything that already exists. There is an opportunity for the various competing AI companies to test that model for any harmful effects and to be able to recommend pausing to address some of these security issues.

I think that’s the… That’s sort of the easy, quick thing that we can do, and it can evolve to more than that over time. But I think that would be a smart move. But why haven’t you done that yet? I mean, there are five of you. Everyone knows the first names—Dario, Demis, Sam.

I mean, you don’t all like each other very much. Yeah, but you’re not all, I mean, you’re also all competing. You all want to be first. But that’s where I think the competitors can keep each other honest.

meaning, like, I think it’s quite difficult for someone in the government who doesn’t have a deep technical understanding and isn’t driving the frontier of AI to know whether Something should be released or not. However, I think the competitors can, you know, if given a week or two to review a new model, highlight issues and have an incentive to keep all the competitors honest. Do you have enough trust between you to do that? I mean, you don’t much like each other. Wouldn’t Sam Altman just think you’re going to steal all his ideas if you did that? Well, we’re just talking about a week.

Honestly, I think as little as a week is all that would be needed, or private testing. It’s not to hand over the AI; it’s just to test it. To test it. Have you proposed this? Yeah, just to test it via an API or something.

I think that would. Probably be a good thing to do. Um, but have you proposed it? I mean, you could to Demis, and I guess I’ll talk to Daria about it, too. Um, there are also, of course, some very competent Chinese AI companies, several of them that are very good.

The new Kimmy K3 model, yeah. The one that came out last week, was almost as good as Fable. Well, I think realistically, Fable is still clearly the smartest model. I think, and anyone realistically would say that, that’s still the case, but the Kimmy K3 model is getting quite close to Fable. Now, Anthropic had Mythos, from which Fable is derived.

I think they had that ready in February. They’ve got, they’ve got what they call—I’m not sure what they call it, but Mythos 2 or Fable 6 or something—something much better than what they had in February. They almost certainly have it. Not almost certainly, they definitely have it right now.

and I think they could release it at any time. Just before we get on to releasing, how do you think about the Chinese models and the geopolitics of it? Are you worried about the Chinese catching up and getting ahead? Given that the Chinese AI companies are doing as well as they are with a relatively small amount of compute, it seems that if they had a lot of compute, there’s a good chance they would be the leaders, and at some point, they… Probably will have a lot of compute, so they will go; they will be the leaders. There’s a good chance that they are the leaders at some point.

Um, you can think of the constraints on AI are essentially electricity and AI chips. Um, and then for physical AI, the robots, uh, China also has some very good robot companies. In fact, they have these robot sporting events. I don’t know if you’ve seen some of them.

Yes, I have. I saw them. Last time I was in Beijing, I saw the robots. Well, and then they have a sort of boxing match or fighting match with the robots, which is quite entertaining.

And I saw some videos of a robot that had its head knocked off but kept fighting even with its head knocked off. It looked pretty funny. But, I mean, in fact, I think the robot battles are going to be quite entertaining to watch. But, just so you know, China is very strong on robots and digital AI.

If you look at electricity production, you can say that AI development depends on the limiting factor, whether it’s chips or electricity. China has far more electricity than the United States; in fact, China has more electricity than the United States, Europe, and India combined already, and it is heading towards, I guess, four times the electricity production of the US, which is roughly proportional to the population. What should the US government do about this? I mean, if you, presumably, it… It is a little alarming if you have an authoritarian regime far ahead in the most powerful technology, and clearly, what the US government’s been trying to do with export controls and so forth is to keep China back.

Do you think they should ban the use of K3, Kim K3, for example? Well, the US government can’t—they can pass some law that prevents US companies from using Chinese models, but they can’t stop the rest of the world from using them. So it’s not like the US government has authority over China or the rest of the world. Do you think they should stop US companies from using them? There’s talk of that right now. I don’t think that helps. And that won’t stop China from being…

The leader in AI. The really thing for digital intelligence comes down to how much AI compute you have. Well, how many chips do you have and how much power do you have? How much electricity do you have? the constraint right now I think is actually slightly more on power and cooling than it is on AI chips because the power demands of the AI chips are very, very high. We’ll talk about water demands, but the really water usage of AI is negligible, almost nothing.

But the electrical demand is very high. That’s why you’re thinking of orbital data centers, presumably. That’s the constraint for any AI chips not being turned on in China is electricity, power, and cooling. Electrical equipment and everything.

Um, the rate at which AI chips are being made exceeds the rate at which new electricity is coming online in China. Um, outside of China. Outside China. I see.

Yeah. Um, and since China, you know, the US has banned the export of the latest AI chips to China. Um, China is somewhat chip-starved. but they are becoming much more efficient at using the chips that they have, and that one of the striking things about Kim K3, right, is how efficiently they and China is also, I think, closer than most people realize to solving the lithography problem, which would enable them to make AI chips at very large volumes.

I think there’s, you know, this shouldn’t The discussion could devolve into just a China conversation, but, um, so the current constraint is electricity outside of China. In China, the constraint is chips. Once we address the power constraint with AI data centers in space, then the constraint will once again be chips outside of China. That suggests to me that you need China and the US; if you’re going to have some overall safety constraints, they will need to work together.

If you are going to try and, I mean, you suggested, you know, the five major makers here working—probably it should include the Chinese companies that are doing frontier AI models too. And do you think governments need to be involved? My recommendation would be that if, if some. If the leading companies in AI say that a new model is very dangerous, then they should inform the government. If they do not take steps to address the danger, then they should alert the government to take action to limit the release of that model.

This action could be by the Chinese government or by the US government. It’s really just the US government and the Chinese government that have the power to take such action. But I guess people would be worried about relying on a group of model builders to decide whether to do this. I mean, if you look at what the US government has done.

With Mythos, they stepped in because they were worried about the cybersecurity risks, and they stepped in by using, you know, threat of export controls to prevent the widespread release of this model. I find it hard to see how governments will not want to keep that power, that they ultimately decide whether a model gets released. I think they should have that power. But it wasn’t as though someone in the government figured out that Mythos had some scary cybersecurity risks.

It was Amazon. Amazon highlighted this, and Amazon called the White House. So you’d have a system where the model makers would check each other’s work. If there was something that worried them, you’d…

Tell the government. The government would then take action. If there’s something else that was worrisome and that company was not doing anything to address that risk, then that would be the moment for the government to step in, and take action, which is literally what just occurred. Why does all this have to happen? Well, I think it would be good to do that immediately, really.

Yeah. Yeah. That’s what people keep telling me. We have to get some kind of system in the next six months because of the pace at which the models are improving.

Yeah, six months is a long time. Um, so you think shorter than that? Well, I mean, there’s so many AI breakthrough announcements, sometimes multiple. Per day. I mean, how many were there last week? A lot.

I lost track, you know. Yeah, a lot. Um, so, so, you, basically, you know, whether it’s Demis’ proposal or others, you need to get together and get this set up kind of now. It sounds like you’re telling me.

Yeah, I, I, I would recommend that we at least have some sort of informal, um, weekly or bi-weekly, um, call, and that there’s, that there’s maybe a week or two weeks of early access by competitors. And, and this is why I think the incentives work, is because if you know, competing companies, I think, are likely to understand if something is a security risk, and they’re not going to be shy about highlighting that, that their, their competitor’s model. Should be delayed in release. I think the incentive structure does work quite well there, and if the— and this is sort of how it works with the Motion Picture Association, you know.

It’s an industry group that decides how movies should be rated, whether it’s appropriate for young children or not. And that seems to have worked quite well. and then you really just ask the government to intervene if some company is doing something very dangerous and refuses to take action to reduce the danger. Do you think this is a tricky one, but you guys don’t much like each other and you don’t much trust each other. You’re insulting each other.

You’re watching my interview with Elon Musk. If you want to get early access to other interviews, subscribe to The Economist by clicking the link above. Now, back to the interview. On social media constantly.

So do you think you can do that with people that you dislike, where there seems to be such personal vitriol between some of these leaders? Um, yes. Well, I’m not a fan of Sam Altman because… You’re watching my interview with Elon Musk. If you want to get early access to other interviews, subscribe to The Economist by clicking the link above.

Now, back to the interview. If you started a nonprofit that was meant to be an open-source AI company, owned by the world, and it somehow got turned into an $800 billion for-profit company with closed source, I think you’d be like, well, wait a second, that’s the exact opposite of what I donated the money for. That’s my issue, I think it’s a legitimate one. Um, and then Dario I think also is not a fan of Sam Altman because he felt, in fact, the reason the Anthropic team left OpenAI is because they didn’t trust Sam Altman.

Otherwise, Anthropic wouldn’t exist; they would still be at OpenAI. Um, I think Dario is a very principled person. He cares about things a lot, cares about the future of the world. And I think everyone I’ve met at Anthropic so far has been, I’m like, no one set off my evil detector, you know, they always seem like they’re well-intentioned.

Um, and the road to hell is, I think, mostly paved with bad intentions. There are a few well-intentioned paving stones in there. we don’t want to be… Complacent.

Um, but, uh, at the end of the day, if we have to talk, we’ll talk. I mean, set aside our personal differences for the good of the world. Well, that’s a very good thing for the rest of us to hear. Yeah.

Um can I, can we turn to another risk that people worry about, particularly I think ordinary Americans, where you know AI has become incredibly unpopular. Seventy-five percent of people are worried about it, and I think they worry about their jobs. And if you look at Dario, he has said famously that 50% of entry-level jobs, entry-level white-collar jobs, will be gone within a few years. You’re building humanoid robots.

He also said, like, I mean, Dario, did dig his own grave here regarding Mythos because he said you… Know Mythos is like super scary, terrifying, and also, by the way, we’re going to release it. And then he’s like, what, what do you mean you know? So I think he, um, I think probably in the future we’ll choose his words differently.

But what? Because obviously, if you make, if you terrify everyone and then say, oh, we’re releasing this terrifying thing, people will obviously be alarmed about that. You know, you’ve literally told them to be scared, and then you release the scary thing, so they will be scared. That is natural. So I, I certainly don’t want you to alarm people, but I do think there is a really important debate about how quickly and to what degree AI displaces people from jobs because it is, as you say, if in 10 years it’s…

There’s more artificial intelligence than any human intelligence. And if you are, and I think you’re ahead of everyone, at least in this country, on powering humanoid robots, that’s also going to be kind of factory work. So do you, are you, do you, are you closer to Dario, let’s say, in your sense of the pace at which jobs are going to be displaced? I, I do think it’s going to be a bumpy road, because AI will be able to do any job better than any person can do that job.

Um, and that will be true very quickly for jobs that, um, are digital or really anything that involves a person at a computer or on a phone. AI could do all of that. Um, will be able to do all of that very soon. I mean, for software.

Engineering, we already have a situation where AI is better than at least 90% of humans, um, at writing software. 90% of professional software engineers at writing software. And I mean, really, it’s getting to the point where it’ll be better than 99%. And then it’ll get to the point where there’s just no way to compete.

It’ll, it’ll get to what I call Stockfish level. So Stockfish, so Stockfish is the chess program that, um, Stockfish is so good at chess that, you know, it will easily beat Magnus Carlsen or anyone, uh, at chess, um, on a even running on a small computer. I suspect that you could probably run Stockfish on your phone and beat Magnus Carlsen. That’s how good it is at chess and that’s how good AI will be at writing.

Software, and beyond software, beyond, and that applies to everything. But what about you, for physical jobs, for assembly jobs? You will also need the capability in humanoid robots, which so far isn’t there yet, is it? Right, so that’s why I said digital AI and then physically manifested AI in the form of robots, where the robot is more or less an end-effector. It would have some amount of local intelligence but be managed by a large AI model. And I’ve said many times I think work is going to be optional.

I mean, let me, I think maybe a good comparison would be gardening—you don’t have to garden, you know, you don’t have to. Grow vegetables in your garden; you can go to the store, and they’re going to be pristine vegetables, or you could grow vegetables in your garden, and they will actually be less perfect. Your tomatoes aren’t going to be as plump and juicy as the ones at the store. They’ll, you know, look a little artisanal.

But, you know, if you go to a friend’s house and they make dinner with vegetables from their garden, it’s a nice touch. that’s what work is going to be like. You know, I get that. I mean, in that world, I would be hopeless because I can’t garden to save my life.

But I get the idea. People still like playing chess with each other, even though every computer’s better. Let’s just, let’s just. Think about the politics of this.

Yeah. Because it sounds like you’re describing a world where within 10 years, pretty much every job can be done better by an intelligence. And yes, you’re seeing huge benefits from this intelligence to people like you; you’re the wealthiest man in the world. What about people who lose their jobs, who are displaced, who may go off and garden? But how are they going to live? And what kind of— I mean, it sounds to me universal basic income, but how are you going to get there? Let’s talk about the politics of this, because right now if we look at the political pressures in most countries, people are very worried about this, very opposed to it.

I mean, it seems to me that there’s a risk that we are… Heading more for revolution than for an easy route to this nirvana you’re describing. I mean, it will be a bumpy road. I’m not suggesting that everything will be smooth sailing here.

Um, so I mean, there are many jobs that used to exist that don’t anymore because of computers. I mean, the word ‘computer’ used to refer to a person performing calculations; that used to be a job description for a person. You can see pictures online of buildings that have entire skyscrapers filled with people doing calculations to, for example, determine interest on bank balances. Um, this is how things were done for a long time until computers came around, and even in the beginning, computers were very…

Expensive and hard to use. Uh, so, the thing that’s different here is that the pace of change is radically accelerated. still, some people were upset that their jobs of calculating bank interest would no longer be available. But now I think most people would be hard-pressed to find someone who wants to do that job.

I have a suggestion for what science fiction books people might want to read to get a sense of what the future will be like. The best envisioning of an AI future that I’ve read are the books by Iain Banks, the Culture series. I’m just reading Ascension. I’ve, thanks to you, started reading these.

But I actually don’t find that future a Terribly appealing one because I don’t think humans have agency in that future. They have agency. Minimal compared to the mind. Small way.

But the irony, I mean Iain Banks, as you know, was a socialist. Iain Banks had a very different political philosophy. I’m not sure that’s… I’m not sure I would entirely agree with that.

Let’s agree that that could be where we end up. I’m concerned about the road, and we live, you know, we live in democracies, and people are very worried about this. So I guess two questions. Firstly, do you have to have massive redistribution from people like you to the people who are losing their jobs? Do you need to pay more tax? Do you need much higher taxes on capital so that…

Do you fund some kind of universal income? Otherwise, what do people live off? I think that the Treasury should just simply issue people checks. But where’s the revenue coming from? I mean, I’m enough of an economist. If you just issue checks, you’re going to have inflation. This is like a lot of what we’re trying to think about is these things that were relevant in the past; they will not be relevant in the future.

like, inflation is simply the ratio of money to goods and services. if the goods and services output increases dramatically, if it increases, you know, 1,000%. You can increase the— you can literally print, or these days change the database, print money. It’s—you create money in the…

The database provided the creation of that money is less than the rate at which goods and services increase. You will actually have deflation. I’ll make a prediction, which is that deflation will be the issue, not inflation, because as the output of goods and services increases—if the output of goods and services increases faster than the money supply—you will have deflation. I’m actually willing to believe that.

You may well be right. No, absolutely, you may well be right. But I’m really hung up on how we get from the current polarized, angry, fearful policy we have now to this nirvana. And I think you could paint a picture where people are so scared by this.

Know, they essentially try to stop it. Maybe they can’t, but you get nationalized. There’s a kind of, you know, far-left government. Uh, there’s exorbitant tax increases.

It’s the kind of economy that crumbles because people are so worried about a future that does sound quite scary, as you describe it. how do you handle the politics now? It’s exhilarating and terrifying. But if you were in—yeah. Honestly, and if you ask me on any given day, I—in fact, even intraday, I’ve gone from exhilaration to terror regarding AI.

So I want to be clear: I’m not like—I’m not some, you know, I’m not trying to be some, oh, everything’s wonderful, some Panglossian view of the world. Where everything’s, you know, going to be great. No, no, no risk. I’m saying there is some risk.

Um, I think we agree on that. I guess I’m trying to be more sort of, you know, small-bore and practical and think about what can be done now to limit those risks. And you gave a very strong argument for what you and your fellow model makers could do. What should the government do? Probably would be good for us to coordinate and just highlight issues that we see in each other’s models to mitigate downside risk.

What should the government do? Should you be paying more tax to fund more transfer programs? Well, first of all, I do pay a lot of tax. in fact, I set a record for the most amount of taxes ever paid. That’s also because you’re the world’s richest man. Well, even before that.

So my guess is that I will pay many trillions in taxes, and I’m fine with that. Um, so yeah, um, that’s just the way it’s going to be. But I don’t think in a future where money is irrelevant, I think taxation also becomes somewhat irrelevant. And what about giving people a sense that they have a share in the upside? Sure.

Giving people shares in SpaceX, in Tesla, do you think that’s, and there’s a lot of talk about this right now. Um Well, one of the reasons I took SpaceX public is so that the public could participate in, they could own a piece of SpaceX, um, whereas as a private company, we’re very limited in the number of shareholders. We’re allowed to have that before going public. as a public company, we can have millions of shareholders, whereas as a private company, we are limited to just a few thousand shareholders.

do you think there should be a distribution of shares, like the Alaska Permanent Fund is for? Could you imagine a world where some people talk about the Trump accounts being a kind of vehicle for this, where a share of your equity goes to ordinary Americans? Right. Well, in the taxes that I pay, I mean, I’ll, you know, for my stock options, I pay 40% income tax on a national basis. And then, because I spend about 30% of my time in California, I pay another roughly a third of that in California taxes. State taxes, which are now around 15%.

I pay about 45% in taxes, just so people know. I don’t know if it’s quite so roughly half. Um, then when I die, there’ll be another sort of 45%, roughly half of that, that will be taxed. at the end of the day, I’ll probably have a quarter of what I whatever I have.

But I think the only thing it gives me is that for some period of time I would have control of the direction of the companies. that’s pretty much all it gets me, and until I guess the AI is so smart that it’s in charge, at which point controlling companies won’t really matter. Well, let’s talk about that because I think one of the other things that worries… People talk about the direction we’re heading in, and I’m going to caricature it, but many believe that the world is being shaped by a very small number of incredibly powerful people.

And you are right at the top of that list. But what else is, but is, is this different from the from I agree with you. I think it was like that. When wasn’t that the case? It has always been so, but as you’ve described very vividly, it’s an incredibly rapid change.

And so, let’s start with control of your company, which you definitely have now. After the IPO, you basically have about 80% of the voting shares, and as I understand it, you can only be removed by a vote of shares which you yourself control. so. Tell me if I’m wrong, but I think companies in that bucket—by the way, the AI companies like Google’s in that bucket.

Alphabet is controlled by Larry and Sergey. But I think yours is more extreme, the inability, the same level of voting control of that company. Mark Zuckerberg has control of Meta, and, you know, Mark is trying very hard on the AI front, and I think he will also have a leading AI. I think he released one last week.

So I think he’s, he’s, he—Meta will be one of the AI companies. But is it sensible for one person to have so much control over a company? Um, well, it—I really just need to make sure that I can focus on long-term priorities. Long-term, I just mean in the 5 to 10 years. one of the challenges with being a public company is that there is the pressure to have great results every single quarter, but also not really invest in things that may only pay off in 5 to 10 years.

In the case of SpaceX, I want to extend consciousness beyond Earth and have a growing civilization on the Moon, Mars, and elsewhere in the solar system. I think ultimately, this would have a very high return on investment, but in the short term, we’ll be spending all this money on a Moon base and a Mars base, and then people are like, “I’m going to get all this pressure for missing earnings this quarter.” Because you spent too much on Mars. I’m like, yes, by the way, that was in the S-1 prospectus, and it’s literally listed as a thing we will do. Um, so, but, but, but, they still get grumpy about these things, you know, because they’re like, well, you had, whatever, you know, you said your gross margin would be this, and it’s actually slightly worse, and now we’re going to punish you, and the short sellers all descend upon you, and you get a lot of pressure.

Yeah, so I just need some way to sort of, you know, say like, listen, guys, we’re going to focus on five- to ten-year or longer time horizon investments. This will depress our short-term earnings, but in the long term— I mean, if you take a long-term view—there are investors we… There are many investors that do take a long-term view. In fact, I’m a big fan of the retail investors.

I find our retail investors, on balance, are very insightful and have very long-term perspectives. But part of this comes from the incentive structure for portfolio managers. It’s somewhat understandable why they put so much pressure on quarterly earnings because their compensation and promotion prospects depend on how their portfolio performs, and they only have a few years to make these decisions. They are evaluated based on those decisions over the course of sometimes only a year or less.

And so, since they’re under pressure to have immediate returns, they then put companies under pressure to deliver quick results. once you understand the incentive structure, the behavior naturally follows. But what about key man risk? I mean, what happens—heaven forbid—if you get run over by the proverbial bus tomorrow? You know, it is you who has total control over these companies. Do you have a plan for how they would progress without you? I think they would actually do very well for several years, and you know, there’s a clear roadmap for, or space roadmap, I should say, for SpaceX.

And there’s a roadmap actually for Tesla, literally. I think… There’s, you know, if you look at Apple after Steve Jobs, you know, Steve Jobs had, you know, he had a strategic vision and a bunch of products that he had ideas for, and Apple has done very well. But when you don’t have a creative genius like Steve Jobs, you miss the incredible breakthrough products.

Yeah. So they make amazing phones, great computers, but Apple hasn’t come up with a breakthrough product on the level of Steve Jobs. So by analogy, that’s what you bring to all of your companies. You mentioned Mars.

You know, most people think of you as the man who wants to create a colony on… Mars. we have a multilateral civilization. I’ve been saying that for such a long time.

You have, but now you seem more focused on AI and what AI will do in the next 10 years. And you sound much more excited about using the Moon as a base from which to, you know, pop out orbital AI satellites. Have you shifted your attention away from Mars, or are you as interested in colonizing Mars as you ever were? I’m interested in the set of actions that propagate consciousness into the future to the maximum degree possible, so that the future light cone of consciousness is as big as it can be. You know, there’s an exciting future where we are a space-faring civilization.

Civilization out there among the stars and the great things that are envisioned in the non-dystopian sci-fi books and movies will become real one day. I sort of want the Star Trek, you know, Star Wars future. Star Wars was the first movie I ever saw in a theater, by the way. Really, it’s probably, maybe, it had a profound effect on me, I suppose.

Um, so I remember it was, I was it blew my mind, honestly. I think I was 6 years old, and I was like, this is the greatest thing I’ve ever seen. Has your life been about making that happen? Yeah, it is. I mean, I didn’t think it would be, when I was young, but um, and my life feels somewhat surreal, like I can’t believe these things are actually happening.

Happening, you know. Um I think the world makes me believe in simulation theory. Yeah. Where it’s like, well, these things I’m doing are so preposterous that it’s hard to believe they’re real.

I mean, we’ve got Starship, which is the largest, most powerful flying object ever made. Um, and we intend to launch that more than once per hour. I know. I read that, and we can, you know, people can quibble about how quickly it happens, but I think based on your track record, we should assume it will happen at some point.

It will happen. I’m just sort of struck that when I, when I, I am as blown away by this world as you are, and I watch it from a much more naive level. But for me, the whole evolution of AI and The capabilities of these models are in and of themselves so mind-blowing. It’s pretty much happening as I thought it would.

Is it? Yeah. that’s interesting. Um, and not just me, many people predicted this. I think Ray Kurzweil’s predictions have been remarkably accurate.

Yeah. The singularity. Yeah. Approaching.

Let’s go back more immediately to the here and now. We’ve talked about concentration of control in your companies. You’ve made a very good case for why you should have it. You also have, through Starlink, incredible geopolitical power.

I mean, I’m one of your customers. Excellent product. Great. But without it, the Ukrainians would have They have been in serious, serious trouble.

And, obviously, the Ukrainian government has publicly thanked Stalin many times for being instrumental in defending Ukraine. And you recently decided to prevent the Russians in the occupied territories from having access to Starlink. Um, well, no, we, we, we were never at any point selling Starlink to Russians. Um, but they were grabbing it. They were using it, and you’ve now stopped them from doing that.

Well, what they—they essentially got Starlink units that they ordered through Ukraine and then smuggled into, uh, the, into eastern Ukraine, where the Russians are, and were then using them, um, in some cases for attacks. Um, now, in order to address. This, um, what we worked with the Ukrainian government to create is a whitelist of approved Starlink terminals. Now, this has some downsides because a whole bunch of people who were just innocent users of Starlink and just trying to access the internet for work or education now don’t have Starlink.

These are geopolitical decisions of consequence. How do you feel about having that power? You can determine the outcome of wars. Huh, huh, huh. How does that feel? And is it right that you should have that power? Well, I, I’m not sure we are determining the ultimate outcome of the, you know, the, say, the war in Ukraine.

Um, you know, I, I, I think, uh, I do hope that, that, that there’s some sort of peace agreement reached soon because, um… For like two or three years now, the border has barely moved, and every day there are lots of people dying at the front line. I think there’s a lot of wishful thinking here, with people saying, well, Russia should completely withdraw. But this is not realistic.

I really think there needs to be some, you know, a piece, a plan, where we have to be pragmatic about this. What I believe would be terrible is if there are another three years of people dying senselessly at the front lines, and you have to ask how you explain to the children of the men who are dying at the front lines—Russia on the Russian side, too. By the way, they’re being… Conscripted and sent there.

I am quite offended by sort of fancy diplomats who have, you know, seven-course dinners in, you know, luxurious places, while people are dying at the front lines, and who pontificate about how Russia should withdraw, but Russia’s not going to withdraw. So there really needs to be an accepted peace along those lines. And do you think it’s your responsibility to play a role in tipping the scales towards what you see as the right way to peace? I, I, I would. I’ve been advocating peace for a long time.

I, you know, I posted a few years ago that there really needs to be some concessions here to Russia. Um, this is not me being pro-Russia, I’m just being. Pragmatic, um, or people will die for years with nothing achieved, and that is exactly what happened. I don’t know.

I mean, the Ukrainians are doing pretty well right now, with their incredible drone capacity hitting inside Russia, and the general consensus is that the balance of the war is shifting. But my point is not so much about retaking those territories; it is not going to happen. My interest is really in whether you think, given that you have through Starlink an incredible power, it is appropriate that you should wield it. That’s quite rare for an individual actor to have such power by turning on and off a.

Capability to shape conflict. Well, is this something you think I should do differently? I mean, I think you were right to support Ukraine. I think that, you know, as it won’t surprise you, I think that the Russian aggression was, you know, for many, many reasons, an appalling aggression, and I think that was an important thing that you did. Yeah.

I mean, I did a very deep dive into the background of that conflict to understand exactly what was going on. Um, and I’m reminded of the old adage that there are no angels in war. It’s a similar tone, I think, about domestic politics, where you’ve played a big role domestically and politically here. You spend a lot of money on Donald Trump.

Re-election. After the election, you got very actively involved, you know, through Doge, you tried to cut a lot of spending and reshape the government. How do you feel that was not hugely successful in the sense that, you know, there wasn’t nearly as much spending cut as you aimed for? Looking back on that, do you regret getting so involved in politics? Do you think it was a good thing to do? I think I, I think I got a little too involved in politics. I got carried away, frankly.

Um, so, the, um, the goal with the sort of Doge stuff was to try to do something about the deficit, which is massive. Um, where the interest payments exceed the amount of money spent on the Department of War, like. Basically, if you add up all the money spent on, um, what is now the Department of Defense and intelligence in the US, that is smaller than the interest payments on the debt. we need to take a close look at spending, um, and make sure that money is being spent in sensible ways and that it is not wasted or spent on fraudulent activities.

Um, and I got a lot of flack for this, obviously. Um, but people don’t understand just how simple it was for the Dogecoin team to approve payments. If we literally just asked to have the contact information of the recipient or some evidence that the money was going to its intended purpose, over and over again, we told them we needed that. To wire money for some sort of important cause in Africa, and we’re like, okay, but the wiring instructions are to Washington, DC, not to Africa.

So we would like to send the money to Africa. Can you please connect us with the recipients so we can send them the money directly? Then we get silence. I have, we don’t need to relitigate Dogecoin. I have no doubt that there was, there’s a lot of waste in the US government.

I think probably much worse than anyone could possibly imagine. But the way, I mean, I think there is a fair criticism that the way you shut down a whole bunch of programs probably, in fact, certainly caused unnecessary suffering. I mean that, no no you don’t buy that at all. It, it.

You’re watching my interview with Elon Musk. If you want to get early access to other interviews, subscribe to The Economist by clicking the link above. Now, back to the interview. You don’t, so you don’t buy the idea that anybody, to put it really crudely and simply, any kid in Africa died because of the suddenness with which…

Zero? I just don’t think I just don’t think my, I mean, I’ve had people reporting in Africa who… How many NGOs are there that could, that could, that could step in? Because, bear in mind, this happened quickly. there are literally tens of thousands of NGOs.

Yeah. Not everyone functions as fast as you do. If funding is cut off for… Antiretrovirals overnight, and it just stops.

Then, people will die when they don’t have access to them. No, no, only if they cannot get funding for that. But with the Gates Foundation, they have $50 billion. What’s what, what about them? What about any one of a number of organizations? What about, um, Mackenzie, whatever her last name is, who used to be, uh, gave $50 billion? What about that? But you know, let’s be practical.

In many of these countries, USAID was the biggest funder. But I, I don’t want to have a… USD was a political organization. It may also have been that, but it was the biggest funder of the health care system.

So I, I am very sure of regime change, and there may well be benefits. From having also, USID funding was not stopped. It was moved to the State Department. It was stopped.

There were huge numbers of things shut down in Africa that were claims of this. These claims are false. They’re nonsense and absolute nonsense. But, of course, when funding is stopped for fraudulent organizations or for other reasons, do you think they’re going to say, “Please keep funding the fraud,” or do you think they’re going to come up with a sad story that sounds sympathetic in order to get the funding restored? Obviously, it will be the latter.

And that’s exactly what they did. But zero died because well, that’s what I, that’s what I, that’s what… I would take issue with that. I think you can—I actually have a lot of sympathy for the change in the aid regime that the US under the Trump administration has precipitated.

However, I think the pace and the suddenness with which it happened will almost certainly have caused unnecessary suffering and deaths. And I think both of those can… No, I think that’s totally false. Okay.

Well, and obviously false because the amount of funding we’re talking about is far less than what can be done, than what can be supported via private foundations like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation or MacKenzie Scott’s Foundation. She’s given away tens of billions of dollars. The Gates Foundation has tens of billions of… They are capable of acting very quickly.

And if they didn’t, I would say they’re equally responsible. I see. Okay. Obviously.

All right. Fair point. Zero people. I hear you loud and clear.

Zero. Hear you loud and clear. Obviously, domestically, you stepped away from Dogecoin. It was hard to do what you were trying to do.

You’ve just explained it. But this administration has gone in directions that I suspect you were not expecting two and a half years ago. You know, I’m not going to agree with everything any administration does. Are you disappointed by this administration? No, I think this administration, on balance, is as excellent.

No, no. The administration is perfect, but it’s vastly better than the alternative. Can we talk about Europe, a place that you are very, very focused on? Um I’m not that focused on Europe. I think judging by your posts, you’re pretty concerned about Europe.

Uh, you support I mean, every once in a while, I post something. It’s reasonably frequent; it’s not just once in a while, but because I’m genuinely interested in this as someone who lives in Europe, lives in London. Yeah. Uh, you paint a picture.

First of all, you support not just the populist right but the far right, in fact, very fringe parties in some countries. No, I support the normal people. Okay. What you call the far right is falsely labeled.

You think it is. The normal person. Okay.

Um, literally, you could go back 10 or 15 years, and these policies were completely normal. In fact, one of the tricks I think is funny, what I find quite amusing, is to take a speech from Obama or Hillary Clinton, then go to someone who is, you know, on what I call the lunatic left, and ask, “What do you think of Trump’s speech?” And they say, “Oh wow, he’s the worst person ever.” Actually, that was a speech by Obama, or actually, that was a speech by Hillary Clinton. I agree. No, I agree that the center of gravity in this country has shifted, certainly the Democratic Party has shifted to the left.

But that’s not what I’m talking about. I’m… Talking about people like Rupert Lowell? People. It’s actually just normal people.

Um, it’s just normal people. It’s just normal people. And, um, here are the principles, and tell me which of these sound terrible—um—that we should have secure borders, that we should have safe cities, uh, that we should have sensible spending. Which of those three are, well, our—are our—far-right fringe? And I would like to just admonish you and the media for the absurd characterization of the far right.

It is false, misleading, and nonsense. Please keep this part in. We’ll keep all of this in. But let me, let me, let me, don’t cut this part.

Let me push back on that. Let me push back on that because you have nonsense. Elon, You have, what, approximately 250 million followers on X. Yeah.

You say things like “The Civil War in Britain is inevitable.” Just a question. I mean, when were you last in the UK? Um, a few years ago. Exactly.

I live there. I’m there all the time. That is not You live in close proximity. No, I don’t actually.

And the numbers also disprove what you say. What numbers? All the data about crime. London is a much safer city than any city in the United States. Violent crime in the UK is not where you think it is.

In fact, it’s coming down. You have, and because you have so many followers, so many Americans believe it, a view that Europe and the UK are kind of, You know, overrun with terrifying Muslim immigrants. There’s rape on every corner. There’s a sort of civilizational destruction.

I haven’t said any of those things. It’s just not well, you say civil war in Britain is inevitable. Yes, if current trends continue, it is. Why? Well, if you have a large and rapidly growing group of people whose beliefs are antithetical to Western beliefs, at some point there will be a reckoning, and they will try to implement their views.

Those who oppose it will resist, and that’s what you call civil war. And obviously, this is the trend. And, and you absolutely do live in a cloistered existence. If you’d like, we can go on a tour.

Sure. Very happy to come on a tour of Britain. And then you will see my country, which I live in all the time, and you haven’t been there in a few years. I’ve been there literally a hundred times.

But when was the last time? Literally a few years ago. You know why this exercises me? Because you have really shaped opinions about the UK, and so many Americans I come across and have conversations with, they will say, and I just had one the other day, along the lines of, ” London is such a dangerous place. How can you live there? There are grooming gangs everywhere. There’s violence everywhere.” This is a picture that people get from the things you post or that are posted on X, and for example, you’re…

Posting for what was it, 48 hours, of Citizen Vigilante—that film, which you know, paints a dystopian picture. I’ve watched it. It was not fun.

I watched it yesterday. It’s not a very good movie, but it also paints a dystopian picture of Europe, and it glorifies vigilante violence. It glorifies the murder of a Muslim immigrant family. I honestly think that it is irresponsible for you to put that up on X.

I think that it’s just a movie, and it’s worth watching. You’re clearly suggesting Europe is a dystopian place, and you I mean, why aren’t you more, uh, doing more to fight censorship in Europe? Why aren’t you doing seemingly nothing to fight censorship in Europe? That’s not true. I am, I think that…

They put people in prison in the UK for social media posts. Do you think that’s appropriate? No. And we’ve written editorials against it. But I think that’s the sort of thing that I think is wrong.

And I think if you and I agree with you, but I don’t think you have to glorify vigilante violence and post the things that you are doing and paint an entirely inaccurate picture of Europe that you I don’t think it is. We should do a tour of the UK. And one of the UK has actually been very good at integrating immigrants.

The UK has been very effective at doing that. There are problems. I’m the first to admit that there are problems. Yes, there are major problems.

There are problems. But it Elon Musk may be the most powerful man in the world. He’s worth almost $1 trillion, runs Tesla and SpaceX, boasts an enormous social-media following, and to top it all off, he reckons he’s pretty good at predicting the future, too. In his first extended interview since SpaceX’s blockbuster IPO, Elon Musk said it’s not.

It really is not what you are describing or suggesting to your 240 million followers. It is. And I think there’s a problem. No, I think I’m, I think I’m spot on.

Well, we’ll have to, and that’s why you have freedom of speech, or at least it allows people to say things that are wrong. But your point is not that. You’re just saying I have every right to say what I want. You’re saying, you know, I am right about Europe and I really don’t think you are.

I think I am. I think you will find that most people in Europe, or many people in Europe, don’t think you’re right about it. But let’s come to that point, because the media keeps ignoring what’s real. I don’t think that’s true either.

I really… They’re programmed by the TV and conventional media. But, and why are you—this is, I guess, even to me, a bigger picture question. Why do you focus on this? Why are you interested in it? Because, on the one hand, we started this conversation, and you described to me this extraordinary, transformative, amazing, sort of, yeah, civilizational-changing stuff that’s happening in the next 10 years.

And yet, you’re also, you know, an ongoing participant in the worst kind of tribalism, uh, you know, a cesspit of social media. Like, how does that fit? Are you, you know, on the one hand, two very different views of the world. Yeah, I don’t think they’re inconsistent. But why do you do the latter, the tribalism? I mean, people say…

That you’re a racist. People say that you’re, you know, there’s all sorts of things said about you, which I’m sure you would disagree with. Um, but I just don’t understand what is the motivation for doing that. Are you fomenting? My partner is, is, is um, she’s half Indian, and I have four children with her.

Um, you know, um, one of them was named after a famous Indian physicist. Um, so I would say I’m not racist, and also, uh, the, you know, if you look at the people employed at my companies, um, you know, we have senior executives of all races. Uh, there’s, there’s, I don’t think there’s any racism there. Are you anti-Muslim? Um, I am.

I’m against, uh, having, if, if people are coming to a country with antithetical views. I am against that. I’m against that. You know, I’m against rape and murder.

I’m against the imposition of rules and laws that are contrary to what we’ve come to accept in the West. And I think it’s a crying shame that the sort of traditional media like you don’t recognize this. First of all, I think that you hugely exaggerate the challenges that Europe faces. Secondly, in areas I completely agree with you.

I think that, you know, the constraints on freedom of speech in the UK in certain areas are problematic. What worries me is that the people you are supporting are really quite vile people in some areas. Like some members of the Alternative for Germany (AfD), Alice Videl, whom I’ve met, is a… I hope I am having a big impact. Why? Why should you, why should you be able to shape European politics? What? You don’t even live there.

I think of it as the sort of the West collectively. But do you see why this makes people think that this man, who has all this power, he’s the world’s richest man, thinks he has a right to influence our politics? It makes people think. It’s why, you know, we started this conversation. Saying superlatives.

It’s why people loathe you. I mean, some people do loathe you. Yes, some people do. But do you understand why? Do you think what you’re doing is helpful for the West? Maybe, maybe some people do loathe me.

And that’s probably true. I don’t care. Um, but the fact that, as you pointed out, a quarter billion people follow me, is that I think a lot more people actually like me than don’t. And I think a lot more people hate you and the media more than you realize.

Do you realize the media is despised? Do you realize that, how the view of journalists is, like, it’s like a favorable view of journalists is about 15%. I do know that in the United States. so the The shoe is on the other foot. They hate you.

They hate you far more than they hate me. I think there is certainly a loss of trust in journalism. I think, in part, there have been mistakes by journalists and in journalism. I totally acknowledge that.

But I also think that the kind of polarized environment, particularly on social media, fostered by the kinds of things you are pushing on X, actually makes it worse. I don’t think so. I think, I think you’re the problem. The media, um, and speaking of loathing, you’re hated far more than I am, and you don’t seem to even realize that.

I think very few people know who I am relative to you, so I don’t think I play in the same league as the media collectively. Um, so I mean, You’re hated. Do you even know that? You probably don’t. I like to think that I’m aware of my own personal shortcomings, the Economist’s shortcomings, and our worldviews’ shortcomings.

But what we stand for, as you know, are liberal values—traditional, classical liberal values where we worry about concentrations of power and we believe in the individual and the dignity of the individual. I, and individual freedom, I firmly believe that. And I have long thought that you were a classical liberal, but when I read what you classical liberal JS Mill, limited government, individual freedom yeah, I agree with that. When I read what you post on your feed, I sometimes wonder whether you really do believe in…

That. Um, I literally said, look, I believe in safe cities, secure borders, and sensible spending with respect to government. Um, does that doesn’t make me right-wing at all. Um, in the least.

Does the US or do European countries score better on those? The US is better. No. Yeah. Safe cities are much safer in the UK than in the US.

Sensible spending, although the US has a bigger deficit and it’s out of control. You managed, you’ve failed to reduce it. Secure borders. Now, under the Trump administration, I agree with you.

Before that, not, but on two out of three, unequivocally, Europe is in a better place. Yet, you seem to paint a picture of Europe being a hell hole. I don’t think Europe’s a hell hole. Okay.

We can agree on something. When did I ever say that? Well, the picture you paint of Europe, you’re making up things. No, I’m not. You saying a civil war in Britain is inevitable, and then you basically propped up this citizen vigilante film, which really does paint Europe as a hellhole.

It just starts with, you know, ominous music, and it says Europe. Well, there was out-of-control rape and murder. It’s more dangerous in this country than it is in Europe. Where there is danger in this country is because we failed to incarcerate repeat violent offenders.

Um, and that’s, you know, the classic sort of SARSDA or judges that fail to incarcerate repeat violent offenders. And if Somebody gets arrested 50 times, literally, for violent crimes, and eventually they’re going to kill somebody. you either incarcerate them or people will die. I think the prevalence of guns has quite a lot to do with it too.

I mean, this is a much more dangerous country. Murder rates are much higher, in large part because there are so many guns. Well, let me give you an interesting number. There are more people who die in Europe from heat-related deaths than from gun deaths in America.

Why aren’t you writing an article about air conditioning? Well, we’ve done several on air conditioning, and we had a whole long piece about it on our cover last week. You know, why air conditioning? Yeah, we’re very pro air conditioning. Okay, good. Well, good.

Very pro. You should read us. Absolutely. Credits where it’s due.

I think you have a view of The Economist that is not entirely accurate. So I will, you come look at England, start reading The Economist, and I will, um, stand corrected on my criticism of you in this area. There are many parts of Britain and Europe which are not safe. You can’t just walk around.

But there are far more in this country. Far more. No, I don’t think so. All right, let’s go and get my fact-checkers to check that.

Yeah, I don’t think that’s true. Um, let’s move on from this because I think I’ve got a sense. The point is not that the question is not, is that, is America perfect? The question is, does Europe have a serious and growing problem? Absolutely. More dangerous.

That’s where we started this. Europe has a serious and growing problem. I’m not going to say that the United States has no problems, of course it does. But, you know, we should all try to address these issues.

We can agree on that. We should all try to address the problems. My point was simply that I think you exaggerate the scale of Europe’s problem, and that I think you people are asleep at the switch and do not realize the magnitude of the issue. I also think that your…

Interventions, however well-intentioned they may be, risk making Europe’s problem a lot worse. How? Because you are putting your support behind people who are proto-authoritarians, who are not trying simply to, you know, make sure there is better integration of Muslims or to secure the borders, but who have very clear fascist tendencies. And you will cause Europe—I think what you’re saying is total fiction—and really, I’m simply saying that there needs to be, that Europe has to have secure borders. Okay, on that, not to let in vast numbers of people who have views that are antithetical to the accepted views in Europe, and where there will not be some level of safe cultural integration.

Integration. This is simply common sense. If all you are saying is Europe should have secure borders, I completely agree with you. Then, I have misunderstood what your interventions have been on social media because that is not the view I have, nor what I would conclude having seen what the people you are supporting and the things you’re doing.

But if that’s your goal, I share your goal that Europe should have secure borders. I think that’s perfectly agreeable. That gets me to a question. And let me explain what the fundamental driving force here is, why the borders are not secure, which is when you have a welfare state that provides substantial benefits to anyone who comes.

There. Um, you create a very powerful economic forcing function for anyone who is below that standard of living to come to Europe. Um, it is, it is an obvious powerful driving force. Um, and, um, people will come there if, if their standard of living in Europe is above where they are elsewhere in the world.

It’s very basic. I’d completely agree with that. I don’t, I don’t. It’s a very basic incentive structure.

Um, economic conditions, economic influences, determine a lot of migration. I think asylum is a separate issue, but I think you’re absolutely right. There are, there are, um, pressures for migration. However, there are other things that you haven’t focused on, which is migration.

Brings a lot of benefits, and it all particularly does so in a continent like Europe, which is a rapidly aging continent. we can agree that completely uncontrolled borders are a bad idea, but I think Europe benefits from having controlled immigration. It brings, yes. I like, I—I’m in favor of immigration.

Obviously, I’d be hypocritical if I wasn’t, since I’m an immigrant to the United States. Um, I’m in favor of immigration if the person immigrating is going to be a productive member of society. Um, if they’re going to be honest and if they’re not going to mistreat people in that country, they’re going to— I can agree on all of those.

But I think that Europe does better on that than you give it credit for. Credit for that. That’s, I think, where we disagree. But let’s move on.

Tell me, what do you think people get most wrong about you? Well, I mean, you just got a whole bunch of things wrong about me. Pretty much everything in the last—just rewind the last 20 minutes—is still wrong. So I got— we got—I got wrong your—your… Well, let’s not be repetitive here.

Okay. that political side of you, people get most wrong. Yeah. My political views are very centrist.

They’re not far-right, and frankly, calling it far-right I think is an insult to history and to many people. It is an outrageous falsehood. It’s completely absurd. I have literally stated my position, which is that— I’ve been very clear about this, which is that there need to be secure borders.

If there is an influx of immigrants, they need to be people who agree with Western ideals and values. If they don’t, and if there is a long-term growth of people who do not, or in some cases are adamantly opposed to Western values, you are setting yourself up for civil war. This is obvious. A child can see this.

but this is not a right-wing view. I’m simply stating reality. Well, I think we can both agree that evidence will be able to decide which of us is more or less right. And we will find evidence for both of our views in different parts of Europe.

I’m very good at predicting the future. I’m not perfect, but I’m very good at predicting the future. Uh, my batting average is very high for a human. Um, but this does have somewhat of a Cassandra effect, where people don’t believe that what I’m saying is likely to be true, because, you know, I can see into the future with a higher probability of success than most people.

and including things that people believe to be, in some cases, counterintuitive. Um, and again, I’m not saying I’m always right. I certainly am not. But my batting average is very good.

Um, but this, this does have, like I said, a Cassandra effect, where people don’t. I realize that what I’m saying will come to pass. Um, maybe not exactly in the timing I thought, but it will come to pass. Um, and uh, yeah.

The history will write the verdict. But I think you will see that very little of what I’ve said um is inaccurate. Um, and a supermajority of what I’ve said is very accurate and will come to pass, unless there is some change in direction. Do you have a higher confidence level in your expectations of the future for AI—the first part of our conversation or the latter part, the political part? Um, the I mean, AI is digital superintelligence, called the singularity, like a black hole because you don’t know what’s going to happen after that.

It’s, and it sort of sucks in Everything. So I think really in terms of the really big macro effects here, AI and robots will really dominate everything. On a time scale of less than 10 years, which probably renders this other stuff we’ve been talking about less important and less relevant. The AI and robotics revolution will happen sooner.

It will happen sooner than a civil war in Britain. I would say a civil war in Britain is probably 20 years away. And the AI and robot singularity is 10 years away. Well, hopefully these benign, all-powerful AIs will prevent such outcomes.

They probably will. Elon, I don’t agree with everything you say, but it’s always absolutely fascinating to talk to you. Thank you. You’re very welcome indeed.

No, you’re welcome. I’m not boring. You’re definitely not boring..

1. Learning Objectives

• Understand the predicted timeline and impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI) on human society and the economy.
• Explore the challenges and proposed solutions for regulating AI development and mitigating its risks.
• Analyze the geopolitical implications of AI advancement, particularly concerning the US and China.

mermaid
graph TD
A[“Rapid AI Advancement”] –> B{“Future World in 10 Years”};
B — “Overwhelming AI” –> C[“Age of Abundance”];
B — “AI Exceeds Human Intelligence” –> D[“Work Becomes Optional”];
C –> E[“Economy: Digital + Physical Intelligence”];
E — “Humanoid Robots (End-Effectors)” –> F[“Quasi-Infinite Economy”];
D –> G[“Universal Basic Income (UBI) Needed”];
A –> H[“AI Risks”];
H — “Killer Robots (10-20% chance)” –> I[“Need for Regulation”];
I — “Industry Collaboration” –> J[“Competitor Review of Models”];
I — “Government Intervention” –> K[“US & China Role”];
A –> L[“Geopolitical Competition”];
L — “China’s AI Progress” –> M[“Electricity & Chips as Constraints”];
M — “US Export Bans” –> N[“China’s Lithography Efforts”];
N –> O[“Need for US-China Cooperation on Safety”];

2. The Future of AI and Society

2.1 The Age of Abundance and Optional Work

• In about five years, Artificial Intelligence (AI) is expected to surpass the sum of all human intelligence.

  • This means AI will be able to do almost anything better than humans, except perhaps “being human.”

• The most likely outcome is an age of amazing abundance, where people can have anything they desire.

  • This abundance will be driven by a “quasi-infinite economy” powered by vast numbers of robots with advanced digital intelligence.

• The economy will combine digital and physical intelligence, with humanoid robots acting as “end effectors” for AI.

  • These robots will allow AI to shape atoms and produce goods and services in the physical world.

• Work will become optional, similar to how gardening is a hobby today rather than a necessity.

  • AI will perform any job better than a human, especially digital tasks like software engineering.
  • Physical jobs will be handled by humanoid robots managed by large AI models.

2.2 Economic Shifts: Deflation and Universal Basic Income

• Traditional economic concepts like inflation may become irrelevant in an age of abundance.
  • If the output of goods and services increases dramatically, faster than the money supply, deflation will be the main issue.
• With work becoming optional, a universal basic income (UBI) will likely be necessary to support people.
  • The government could issue checks, funded by the massive increase in goods and services, without causing inflation.

Economic Concept	Past/Present	Future (with AI Abundance)
Inflation	Ratio of money to goods/services; prices rise if money supply grows faster.	Deflation likely, as goods/services output increases dramatically faster than money supply.
Work	Necessary for income and societal contribution.	Optional; AI and robots perform most jobs better than humans.
Income Support	Welfare programs, employment-based.	Universal Basic Income (UBI) becomes essential for all.

2.3 AI Risks and the Need for Regulation

• Despite the optimistic outlook, there are significant risks associated with AI, including a 10-20% chance of “killer robots” wiping out humanity.
  • The progress of AI is “inexorable,” meaning it cannot be stopped.
• To minimize risks, leading AI companies should meet regularly to discuss safety and security issues.
  • Competitors could review new frontier models for harmful effects before release, keeping each other “honest.”
• Governments should be informed if a new model is deemed dangerous and the company fails to address the risk.
  • This could lead to government action to limit the model’s release, as seen with the Mythos model due to cybersecurity concerns.

2.4 Quiz

1. In about how many years does Elon Musk predict AI will exceed the sum of human intelligence?
   a) Two years
   b) Five years
   c) Ten years
   d) Twenty years
   (b)

2. True or False: Elon Musk believes that in the future, inflation will be a bigger issue than deflation due to AI abundance.
   (False)

3. What is one proposed way to mitigate AI risks, according to Elon Musk?
   a) Completely stopping AI development
   b) Having leading AI companies meet regularly to discuss safety issues
   c) Banning all humanoid robots
   d) Relying solely on government regulation
   (b)

4. Geopolitics of AI and Global Power Dynamics

3.1 China’s AI Advancement and Constraints

• China is making significant progress in AI, despite having relatively less compute (AI chips and electricity) than the US.
  • If China had more compute, there’s a good chance it would become the global leader in AI.
• The main constraints on AI development are electricity and AI chips.
  • China has more electricity production than the US, Europe, and India combined, and is heading towards four times the US production.
• The US has banned the export of the latest AI chips to China, making China “chip-starved.”
  • However, China is becoming more efficient at using its existing chips and is close to solving the lithography problem to produce its own chips in large volumes.

Constraint	Outside China	In China
Electricity	Current constraint; rate of AI chip production exceeds new electricity online.	Abundant; heading towards four times US production.
AI Chips	Will become constraint once power is addressed (e.g., orbital data centers).	Current constraint due to US export bans; becoming more efficient and close to solving lithography.

3.2 International Cooperation on AI Safety

• Given the global nature of AI development, US and China cooperation will be necessary for overall safety constraints.
  • This collaboration should include Chinese companies doing frontier AI models in discussions about safety.
• If leading AI companies identify a dangerous new model, they should inform their respective governments.
  • The US and Chinese governments are the only ones with the power to take action to limit the release of such models.

3.3 The Role of Individuals and Governments

• Individuals like Elon Musk, through companies like Starlink, possess significant geopolitical power, influencing outcomes in conflicts.
  • Starlink’s role in the Ukraine war, including preventing Russian access, highlights this power.
• Musk believes he “got a little too involved in politics” in the past, particularly regarding US domestic spending.
  • He advocates for sensible spending and addressing the massive deficit.

3.4 Quiz

1. What are the two main constraints on AI development, according to Elon Musk?
   a) Water and labor
   b) Electricity and AI chips
   c) Software and data
   d) Funding and regulations
   (b)

2. True or False: Elon Musk believes that the US government can stop the rest of the world from using Chinese AI models.
   (False)

3. Why does Elon Musk believe US and China cooperation is necessary for AI safety?
   a) Because they are the only countries with advanced AI.
   b) Because they are the only governments with the power to take action on dangerous models.
   c) To share technological breakthroughs.
   d) To prevent a global AI monopoly.
   (b)

4. Societal Impact and Political Views

4.1 The “Cassandra Effect” and Predicting the Future

• Elon Musk believes he is “very good at predicting the future,” often seeing things others don’t.
  • He refers to this as the Cassandra effect, where people don’t believe his accurate predictions.
• He has a higher confidence level in his predictions for AI and robotics than for political outcomes.
  • The AI and robotics revolution (the singularity) is predicted to happen sooner (10 years) than a civil war in Britain (20 years).

4.2 Political Views and Public Perception

• Musk describes his political views as “very centrist,” not far-right.
  • He advocates for secure borders, safe cities, and sensible government spending.
• He believes that calling his views “far-right” is a “falsehood” and an “insult to history.”
  • He points to his diverse workforce and family as evidence against accusations of racism.

Political Principle	Elon Musk’s Stance	Public Perception (often)
Borders	Secure borders are essential.	Associated with “far-right” or anti-immigrant views.
Cities	Safe cities are a priority.	Seen as critical of current urban safety, sometimes linked to specific political narratives.
Spending	Sensible government spending is needed.	Advocates for reduced government spending, which can be seen as conservative.
Immigration	In favor of immigration if individuals are productive and align with Western values.	Often perceived as anti-immigrant due to focus on secure borders and cultural alignment.

4.3 Europe, Immigration, and Cultural Integration

• Musk expresses concern about Europe’s future if current trends continue, particularly regarding immigration.
  • He believes a “civil war in Britain is inevitable” if a large group with beliefs “antithetical to Western beliefs” continues to grow.
• Europe needs secure borders and that immigrants should agree with Western ideals and values.
  • The existence of a welfare state in Europe creates a “powerful economic forcing function” for migration.
• While acknowledging the benefits of controlled immigration for an aging continent, he emphasizes the need for safe cultural integration.

4.4 Quiz

1. What does Elon Musk call the phenomenon where people don’t believe his accurate predictions about the future?
   a) The Nostradamus effect
   b) The Cassandra effect
   c) The Oracle effect
   d) The Prophet effect
   (b)

2. Fill in the blank: Elon Musk describes his political views as very __.
   (centrist)

3. True or False: Elon Musk believes that Europe has been very successful at integrating immigrants.
   (False)

The full-length interview with Elon Musk | The Economist

Ⅰ. Meeting Overview

Category	Details
Date	July 29, 2026
Location	Tesla Gigafactory, Texas
Interviewer	Zanny Minton Beddoes (Editor-in-Chief, The Economist)
Interviewee	Elon Musk (CEO of Tesla and SpaceX)
Agenda	Discussion on AI, its societal impact, geopolitics, and Elon Musk’s political views.

Ⅱ. Meeting Discussion
1. The Future of AI and Abundance

• AI’s Rapid Advancement: Elon Musk predicts that Artificial Intelligence will surpass the sum of human intelligence in approximately five years, leading to an age of “amazing abundance” where AI can perform any task better than humans, except for being human.

• Economic Transformation: The economy will shift towards a combination of digital and physical intelligence, with humanoid robots acting as “end effectors” for AI, leading to a “quasi-infinite economy” where money may become irrelevant due to the overwhelming abundance of goods and services.

• Work as Optional: Work will become optional, similar to gardening today, where people can choose to engage in activities for personal satisfaction rather than necessity.
  2. AI Risks and Regulation

• Inevitable Progress: Musk believes the progress of AI and robotics is inexorable and cannot be stopped, even if one wished to.

• Minimizing Risks: While acknowledging risks, including a 10-20% chance of “killer robots wiping out humanity,” Musk suggests focusing on minimizing negative outcomes.

• Industry Collaboration: He recommends that leading AI companies meet regularly (weekly or bi-weekly) to discuss safety and security issues before releasing new frontier models. Competitors could review new models for harmful effects and recommend pauses to address security concerns.

• Government Role: Governments should be informed by AI companies if a new model is deemed dangerous and the company fails to address the risks. Only the US and Chinese governments have the power to take action to limit such releases.

• Personal Differences: Despite personal animosity among AI leaders (e.g., Musk’s issues with Sam Altman), Musk believes they would set aside differences for the good of the world.
  3. Geopolitics of AI and China

• China’s AI Potential: China’s AI companies are performing well with limited compute resources, suggesting they could become leaders if they acquire more compute power. China also has strong robot companies.

• Constraints on AI Development: The primary constraints on AI development are electricity and AI chips. China has significantly more electricity production than the US, Europe, and India combined, but is currently chip-starved due to US export bans.

• US Government Actions: Musk believes US government bans on Chinese AI models are unhelpful and will not prevent China from becoming an AI leader.

• International Cooperation: For overall AI safety, collaboration between the US and China, including their frontier AI companies, is necessary.
  4. Societal Impact and Politics

• Job Displacement: AI will be able to perform any job better than humans, especially digital and white-collar jobs, very quickly. This will extend to physical jobs with humanoid robots.

• Universal Basic Income: Musk suggests that universal basic income (UBI) will be necessary, funded by the Treasury issuing checks. He predicts deflation will be the issue, not inflation, as goods and services output dramatically increases faster than the money supply.

• Political Involvement: Musk admits he “got a little too involved in politics” with the “Doge stuff,” aiming to address the massive US deficit. He believes there is significant waste and fraudulent activity in government spending.

• Starlink and Geopolitical Power: Musk acknowledges Starlink’s significant geopolitical power, particularly in the Ukraine war, but hopes for a pragmatic peace agreement soon, as the border has barely moved for years with many casualties. He believes his advocacy for peace is pragmatic, not pro-Russia.

• Views on Europe and Immigration: Musk expresses concern about Europe, particularly regarding secure borders and the integration of immigrants whose beliefs may be antithetical to Western values, which he believes could lead to civil war in Britain within 20 years. He states his political views are “very centrist” and that he supports “normal people”. He is in favor of immigration if immigrants are productive members of society and agree with Western ideals.
  5. Personal Control and Future Vision

• Control of Companies: Musk maintains significant control over his companies (e.g., 80% voting shares in SpaceX) to focus on long-term priorities (5-10 years or longer), such as extending consciousness beyond Earth with Moon and Mars bases, despite short-term earnings pressure from public markets.

• Post-Musk Leadership: He believes his companies would perform well for several years after his departure due to clear roadmaps, but would miss “incredible breakthrough products” that a creative genius like him brings.

• Propagating Consciousness: Musk’s ultimate interest is in propagating consciousness into the future to the maximum degree possible, envisioning a space-faring civilization akin to Star Trek or Star Wars.

• Predicting the Future: Musk believes he is “very good at predicting the future” with a high batting average, though he acknowledges a “Cassandra effect” where people don’t believe his predictions will come to pass. He has higher confidence in his AI predictions than his political ones, as the AI and robotics revolution will happen sooner and dominate everything.

Ⅲ. Action Items

• AI Companies: Establish informal weekly or bi-weekly calls among leading AI companies to discuss safety and security issues and allow competitors early access (1-2 weeks) to test new models for harmful effects before release.
• AI Companies: Inform governments if a new model is deemed dangerous and the company is unwilling to address the risks.
• Governments (US & China): Be prepared to take action to limit the release of dangerous AI models if companies fail to address identified risks.
• Elon Musk: Continue to advocate for pragmatic peace agreements in ongoing conflicts.
• Elon Musk: Consider a tour of the UK with Zanny Minton Beddoes to gain a current perspective on the country’s social and political landscape.
• Elon Musk: Read The Economist to gain a more accurate view of its editorial positions, particularly on topics like air conditioning.

The Inevitable AI Revolution: Navigating Abundance and Geopolitical Shifts

The rapid, inexorable advancement of AI and robotics will fundamentally reshape global society within the next decade, creating an age of unprecedented abundance while necessitating new frameworks for governance, economic distribution, and international cooperation to mitigate significant risks.

1. The Inevitable Rise of Superintelligent AI
   Core Sentence: Artificial intelligence is projected to surpass the sum of human intelligence within five years, leading to an age of “amazing abundance” where AI can perform any task better than humans.

mermaid
graph TD
A[“AI Exceeds Human Intelligence”] –> B[“Age of Amazing Abundance”]
B –> C[“Work Becomes Optional”]
C –> D[“Deflationary Economy”]
A –> E[“AI Can Do Anything Better Than Humans”]
E –> F[“Digital & Physical Intelligence Merge”]
F –> G[“Humanoid Robots as End-Effectors”]

• AI is expected to be “far greater than the sum of human intelligence” in 10 years, potentially within five years.
• This will usher in an “age of amazing abundance” where goods and services are so plentiful that money may become irrelevant.
• The economy will transform into a “quasi-infinite economy” driven by vast numbers of intelligent robots and digital AI.
• Work will become optional, with AI performing all jobs better than humans, including digital tasks and eventually physical labor via humanoid robots.

2. Urgent Need for AI Governance and Risk Mitigation
   Core Sentence: Despite the promise of abundance, the rapid acceleration of AI development necessitates immediate, collaborative governance frameworks to address inherent risks, including potential threats to humanity and job displacement.

mermaid
graph TD
A[“Rapid AI Acceleration”] –> B[“Inherent Risks”]
B –> C[“10-20% Chance of Killer Robots”]
[“Job Displacement”]
A –> E[“Inevitable Progress”]
E –> F[“Need for Governance”]
F –> G[“Industry Collaboration”]
G –> H[“Government Intervention”]

• There remains a “10 to 20% chance of killer robots wiping out humanity,” a risk Elon Musk acknowledges as high but inevitable.
• The pace of AI change is “radically accelerated,” with multiple breakthroughs occurring daily, making timely governance critical.
• A proposed immediate step is for leading AI companies to meet bi-weekly to discuss safety and security issues before new frontier models are released.
• This industry collaboration, where competitors keep each other “honest,” could evolve into a system where governments intervene if companies refuse to address identified dangers.

3. Geopolitical Race for AI Dominance
   Core Sentence: The global race for AI leadership, particularly between the US and China, is intensifying, driven by access to compute power and electricity, demanding international cooperation to ensure safe development.

mermaid
graph TD
A[“Global AI Race”] –> B[“US vs China”]
B –> C[“Compute & Electricity Constraints”]
C –> D[“China’s Electricity Advantage”]
C –> E[“US Chip Export Bans”]
[“China’s Lithography Progress”]
F –> G[“Potential Chinese AI Leadership”]
G –> H[“Need for US-China Collaboration”]

• China is rapidly advancing in both digital AI and robotics, with strong companies and robot sporting events.
• China possesses significantly more electricity than the US, Europe, and India combined, a critical factor for AI development.
• While the US has banned the export of the latest AI chips to China, China is becoming more efficient with existing chips and is close to solving lithography problems for large-scale chip production.
• This suggests China could become an AI leader, making US-China cooperation essential for global AI safety constraints.

4. Economic and Societal Transformation
   Core Sentence: The transition to an AI-driven economy will necessitate new approaches to wealth distribution and social welfare, as traditional economic models become obsolete in an era of abundant goods and optional work.

mermaid
graph TD
A[“AI-Driven Abundance”] –> B[“Work Becomes Optional”]
B –> C[“Universal Basic Income”]
C –> D[“Deflationary Economy”]
A –> E[“Redistribution of Wealth”]
E –> F[“Irrelevance of Taxation”]
F –> G[“Public Shareholding”]

• With AI performing all jobs, “work is going to be optional,” leading to a need for universal basic income (UBI).
• Traditional economic concepts like inflation may become irrelevant, as the dramatic increase in goods and services output could lead to deflation.
• Taxation, in a future where money is irrelevant, will also become “somewhat irrelevant”.
• Public participation in the upside of AI-driven companies, similar to SpaceX’s public offering, could be a mechanism for wealth distribution.

Economic Concept	Current State	AI-Driven Future (10 years)	Implication
Work	Necessary for livelihood	Optional	UBI becomes essential
Money	Medium of exchange, store of value	Potentially irrelevant	Abundance negates need for traditional currency
Inflation	Ratio of money to goods/services	Deflationary pressure	Goods/services output outpaces money supply
Taxation	Revenue for government	Irrelevant	Money’s irrelevance impacts tax base
Wealth Distribution	Capitalist accumulation	Universal Basic Income, public shareholding	New models for societal well-being

5. The Role of Individual Power and Long-Term Vision
   Core Sentence: Concentrated individual control in AI and space exploration companies, while enabling long-term strategic vision, raises questions about accountability and the appropriate balance of power in shaping humanity’s future.

mermaid
graph TD
A[“Concentrated Individual Control”] –> B[“Long-Term Vision”]
B –> C[“SpaceX: Mars & Moon Colonization”]
C –> D[“Tesla: AI & Robotics”]
A –> E[“Accountability Concerns”]
E –> F[“Geopolitical Influence”]
F –> G[“Starlink’s Role in Conflicts”]

• Elon Musk maintains significant control over his companies (e.g., 80% voting shares in SpaceX) to prioritize long-term investments over short-term quarterly earnings.
• This control enables ambitious goals like extending consciousness beyond Earth and establishing civilizations on the Moon and Mars.
• However, this concentrated power also grants individuals geopolitical influence, as demonstrated by Starlink’s critical role in the Ukraine war and decisions regarding access.
• The question of whether one individual should wield such power, especially in shaping global conflicts, remains a significant ethical and governance challenge.

Basic

1. According to Elon Musk, what is the most likely outcome for the world in 10 years, assuming no global thermonuclear war?
   ① An age of widespread scarcity and conflict.
   ② An age of amazing abundance where anyone can have anything they can think of.
   ③ A period of stagnation with minimal technological advancement.
   ④ A future where human intelligence remains superior to AI.

(②, Musk predicts an age of amazing abundance due to AI’s capabilities, where goods and services are so plentiful that money may become irrelevant. A common misconception is that technological advancement automatically leads to scarcity or conflict, but Musk’s view is optimistic about resource availability.)

2. Elon Musk believes that artificial intelligence may exceed the sum of human intelligence in approximately how many years?
   (Roughly five years, Musk estimates that AI will surpass the total sum of human intelligence in about five years, leading to a future where AI can perform almost any task better than humans. A common misconception is that this is a much longer-term prediction, but Musk’s timeline is relatively short.)

3. True or False: Elon Musk believes that in 10 years, money will still be a crucial factor in the economy.
   (False, Musk predicts that money won’t matter in 2036 because the abundance of goods and services provided by AI and robots will exceed human consumption, rendering traditional monetary systems less relevant. A common misconception is that even with abundance, money will retain its value, but Musk suggests its purpose diminishes.)

4. What two primary factors does Elon Musk identify as constraints on AI development?
   (Electricity and AI chips, Musk states that the development of AI is primarily constrained by the availability of electricity to power the demanding AI chips and the production of the chips themselves. A common misconception is that data or algorithms are the main bottlenecks, but Musk highlights the physical infrastructure.)

5. True or False: Elon Musk believes that the US government’s export controls on AI chips will effectively stop China from becoming a leader in AI.
   (False, Musk argues that while US export bans on AI chips may cause China to be “chip-starved” currently, China is becoming more efficient with existing chips and is close to solving lithography problems to produce its own chips, suggesting these controls won’t prevent China from eventually leading in AI. A common misconception is that such bans are a definitive solution, but Musk points to China’s adaptive capacity.)

Intermediate

1. According to Elon Musk, how will the economy function in a future dominated by vast numbers of robots with digital intelligence?
   (Musk describes it as a “quasi-infinite economy” where the production of goods and provision of services are handled by vast numbers of robots with immense digital intelligence, transitioning intelligence from purely digital to shaping physical atoms. A common misconception is that such an economy would still operate under traditional scarcity models, but Musk envisions a paradigm shift.)

2. What is Elon Musk’s current philosophical stance on the risks associated with AI and robots, given his past concerns?
   (Musk acknowledges the risks are not zero but has adopted a philosophy of “enjoy the ride,” believing the progress of AI and robots is inexorable and cannot be stopped, and that the most likely outcome is incredible abundance. A common misconception is that he has dismissed the risks entirely, but he has instead accepted their inevitability while hoping for the best.)

3. True or False: Elon Musk believes that humans will still be in control of super-genius AI in 10 years.
   (False, Musk thinks it’s unlikely humans will be in control, drawing an analogy to the intelligence gap between humans and chimpanzees, suggesting AI’s intelligence will vastly exceed ours, making human control improbable. A common misconception is that human ingenuity will always find a way to maintain control, but Musk implies a fundamental shift in power dynamics.)

4. What immediate, practical step does Elon Musk recommend for leading AI companies to mitigate risks before releasing new frontier models?
   (Musk recommends that leading AI companies meet or have calls every few weeks to discuss safety and security issues, and allow competitors a week or two of early access to test new models for harmful effects before public release. A common misconception is that this requires government intervention from the outset, but Musk suggests industry self-regulation as a first step.)

5. How does Elon Musk explain the concept of “Stockfish level” in relation to AI’s capability in various jobs?
   (Musk uses “Stockfish level” to describe a point where AI becomes so superior at a task, like chess, that no human can compete, even top professionals. He applies this to jobs like software engineering, predicting AI will soon be better than 99% of humans, making work optional. A common misconception is that human creativity or intuition will always provide a competitive edge, but Musk suggests AI will surpass this.)

Advanced

1. Explain Elon Musk’s perspective on the relationship between money supply, goods and services output, and inflation/deflation in an age of AI-driven abundance.
   (Musk argues that inflation is the ratio of money to goods and services. In an age of AI-driven abundance, if the output of goods and services increases dramatically (e.g., 1,000%), faster than the money supply, the economy will experience deflation, not inflation. He predicts deflation will be the issue, rendering traditional economic concerns about printing money irrelevant. A common misconception is that increasing the money supply always leads to inflation, but Musk highlights the overwhelming increase in production capacity as a counteracting force.)

2. How does Elon Musk justify his significant control over companies like SpaceX, particularly in the context of investor expectations and long-term goals?
   (Musk justifies his control by stating it allows him to focus on long-term priorities (5-10 years or longer), such as extending consciousness beyond Earth with Moon and Mars bases, rather than succumbing to short-term quarterly earnings pressure from public markets. He notes that while this may depress short-term earnings, he believes it will yield high long-term returns. A common misconception is that such control is solely for personal gain, but Musk frames it as necessary for achieving ambitious, long-term societal goals.)

3. Discuss Elon Musk’s view on the role of private foundations versus government aid in addressing humanitarian crises, specifically in the context of USAID cuts.
   (Musk argues that private foundations like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation or MacKenzie Scott’s Foundation, with their tens of billions of dollars and ability to act quickly, are capable of stepping in to cover funding gaps if government aid (like USAID) is cut, especially if the government aid was supporting fraudulent organizations. He dismisses claims of widespread suffering from USAID cuts as “nonsense,” suggesting private entities could easily fill the void. A common misconception is that government aid is irreplaceable, but Musk points to the vast resources and agility of private philanthropy.)

4. Elon Musk asserts that his political views are “very centrist.” Based on his statements regarding secure borders, safe cities, and sensible spending, how does he defend this classification against accusations of being “far-right”?
   (Musk defends his “centrist” label by stating his core principles are secure borders, safe cities, and sensible government spending, which he claims were “completely normal” policies 10-15 years ago and are simply “common sense.” calling these views “far-right” is a “false, misleading, and nonsense” characterization by the media, implying a shift in the political center rather than his own extremism. A common misconception is that these views are inherently right-wing, but Musk positions them as universally rational and historically mainstream.)

This excerpt note captures Elon Musk’s unfiltered thoughts on the future of AI, his companies, and global politics, as shared in an interview with The Economist. It highlights his bold predictions about AI’s rapid ascent, his unique perspective on economic shifts, and his controversial views on societal and geopolitical issues. This note is for anyone interested in understanding the worldview of one of the most influential figures of our time.

The Future of AI and Humanity

AI’s Exponential Growth and Abundance
Musk predicts an incredibly rapid advancement of AI, far exceeding human intelligence within a few years. This section is impressive because it lays out a vision of “amazing abundance” driven by AI and robotics, fundamentally altering the economic landscape and even the concept of money itself. His timeline for AI surpassing human intelligence is strikingly aggressive, forcing us to confront a future that is both exhilarating and terrifying.

Um, it’s hard to imagine a future where there isn’t an overwhelming amount of artificial intelligence, meaning in 10 years I would expect artificial intelligence to be far greater than the sum of human intelligence, like far greater.
In fact, I think AI may exceed the sum of human intelligence in about, around five years.
The most likely outcome is an age of amazing abundance, where anyone can have anything they can think of.
Money won’t matter in 2036.

The Inevitability of AI and the “Bumpy Road”
Musk acknowledges the risks of AI but ultimately sees its progress as “inexorable” and unstoppable. This perspective is crucial because it explains his shift from advocating for a slowdown to embracing the ride, suggesting that the best course of action is to manage the risks rather than attempt to halt progress. His candid admission of fluctuating between exhilaration and terror regarding AI highlights the complex emotional landscape of this technological frontier.

I still think there’s risk associated with AI and robots. It’s not zero. I guess I’ve come to my sort of philosophical conclusion to look on the bright side.
I can’t see any way to really stop this incredible momentum of AI and robots.
Even if there was a stop button, we probably shouldn’t press it, because the most likely outcome is incredible abundance for all.
Honestly, there’s just an inexorable progress here in AI and in robots that, but even if I wanted to stop it, I couldn’t.

AI’s Impact on Work and Society
Musk foresees a future where “work is going to be optional,” with AI and robots performing all jobs better than humans. This is a profound statement because it challenges the very foundation of human purpose and economic structure. His analogy to gardening—where work becomes a choice for personal fulfillment rather than necessity—offers a glimpse into a post-scarcity world, albeit one with a potentially “bumpy road” of transition.

I do think it’s going to be a bumpy road, because AI will be able to do any job better than any person can do that job.
Work is going to be optional.
You don’t have to garden, you know, you don’t have to grow vegetables in your garden; you can go to the store, and they’re going to be pristine vegetables, or you could grow vegetables in your garden, and they will actually be less perfect.
The thing that’s different here is that the pace of change is radically accelerated.

Geopolitics and Personal Influence

The Role of AI in Global Power Dynamics
Musk emphasizes that “digital intelligence comes down to how much AI compute you have,” highlighting electricity and AI chips as the primary constraints. This insight is critical for understanding the geopolitical race for AI dominance, particularly his assessment of China’s potential to become a leader despite current chip shortages. His suggestion for international cooperation among AI companies to mitigate risks is a pragmatic approach to a global challenge.

Given that the Chinese AI companies are doing as well as they are with a relatively small amount of compute, it seems that if they had a lot of compute, there’s a good chance they would be the leaders, and at some point, they probably will have a lot of compute, so they will go; they will be the leaders.
The constraint right now I think is actually slightly more on power and cooling than it is on AI chips because the power demands of the AI chips are very, very high.
My recommendation to Demis, because I talked to him for a few hours before he published his piece, was that the most immediate thing we could do is to have the leading AI companies at least just meet or have some sort of call once every few weeks, and just discuss any safety and security issues that arise before a breakthrough or a new frontier model is released—something that is far more intelligent than anything that already exists.

Personal Control and Long-Term Vision
Musk defends his significant control over his companies by emphasizing the need to focus on “long-term priorities” that extend 5 to 10 years or more. This is a powerful argument against short-term market pressures, illustrating how his unique ownership structure allows him to pursue ambitious, civilization-altering goals like extending consciousness beyond Earth. It reveals his deep commitment to a future vision that transcends quarterly earnings.

I really just need to make sure that I can focus on long-term priorities.
In the case of SpaceX, I want to extend consciousness beyond Earth and have a growing civilization on the Moon, Mars, and elsewhere in the solar system.
I’m interested in the set of actions that propagate consciousness into the future to the maximum degree possible, so that the future light cone of consciousness is as big as it can be.
I sort of want the Star Trek, you know, Star Wars future.

Political Involvement and Controversial Views
Musk admits to getting “a little too involved in politics” but stands firm on his “centrist” views, which he defines by principles like secure borders and sensible spending. This section is fascinating because it showcases his self-awareness about past over-involvement while simultaneously doubling down on controversial stances, particularly regarding European immigration. His belief in his own predictive ability, even when others disagree, underscores his conviction and highlights the “Cassandra effect” he perceives.

I think I, I think I got a little too involved in politics. I got carried away, frankly.
My political views are very centrist. They’re not far-right, and frankly, calling it far-right I think is an insult to history and to many people.
I have literally stated my position, which is that— I’ve been very clear about this, which is that there need to be secure borders. If there is an influx of immigrants, they need to be people who agree with Western ideals and values.
I’m very good at predicting the future. I’m not perfect, but I’m very good at predicting the future. Uh, my batting average is very high for a human.

What is Elon Musk’s vision for the future, particularly regarding AI? He predicts AI will surpass human intelligence in five years, leading to an age of “amazing abundance” where work is optional and money becomes irrelevant due to the near-infinite production of goods and services by AI and humanoid robots.

• Elon Musk’s Vision for the Future
  • AI will surpass human intelligence: Elon Musk predicts that Artificial Intelligence (AI) will become much smarter than the combined intelligence of all humans in about five years, by roughly 2031. He expects that within ten years, by 2036, AI will be far superior to human intelligence.
  • Age of Abundance: This advancement in AI will lead to an “age of amazing abundance” where people can have almost anything they desire.
  • Work will be optional: In this future, work will become optional because AI and robots will be able to perform all jobs better than humans.
  • Analogy to gardening: Musk compares future work to gardening, where people might choose to garden for enjoyment, even though stores offer perfect vegetables. Similarly, people might still play chess for fun, even though computers are far better at it.
  • Job displacement: AI is already better than 90% of human software engineers and will soon surpass 99%. Musk uses the example of Stockfish, a chess program that can beat any human player, even on a phone, to illustrate how superior AI will become in various tasks, including software writing.
  • Money will be irrelevant: By 2036, money will no longer be important because AI and robots will produce goods and services in such vast quantities that there will be more than any human could possibly consume.
  • Deflation, not inflation: Musk predicts that deflation will be the main economic issue, not inflation. This is because the output of goods and services will increase dramatically, potentially by 1,000%, faster than the money supply, leading to lower prices.
  • Humanoid robots as “end effectors“: While digital AI is rapidly advancing, it needs physical bodies to interact with the real world. These “end effectors” will be humanoid robots that are managed by large AI models.
  • Quasi-infinite economy: With a huge number of intelligent robots, the economy will become “quasi-infinite,” meaning there will be an almost endless supply of goods and services.
  • Bumpy road ahead: Despite the optimistic vision, Musk acknowledges that the transition to this future will be a “bumpy road” and not entirely smooth. He notes that past job displacements due to technology, like human “computers” being replaced by machines, caused upset, but the current pace of change is much faster.
  • Human agency: Musk believes that humans will still have agency in this future, though perhaps in a “small way” compared to the super-intelligent AI. He recommends reading Iain Banks’s “Culture series” for a good vision of an AI future.
• AI Risks and Regulation
  • Risk of AI: Musk still believes there is a risk associated with AI and robots, stating it’s not zero. He previously expressed concerns about “rapid recursive self-improvement” in AI, comparing humans to “pet Labradors” at best. In 2023, he even signed a letter calling for a slowdown in AI development.
  • Inevitable progress: Despite the risks, Musk has concluded that the “incredible momentum” of AI and robots cannot be stopped. He now believes it’s best to “enjoy the ride” because stopping AI’s progress is impossible.
  • “Killer robots” probability: He previously estimated a 10-20% chance of “killer robots wiping out humanity”. When asked if this probability still stands, he acknowledges it’s a “high probability” but emphasizes that if nothing can be done to stop it, the focus should be on minimizing bad outcomes.
  • Accidental acceleration of AI: Musk notes that his own actions, such as co-founding OpenAI as a counterweight to Google’s AI monopoly and the subsequent spin-off of Anthropic, inadvertently accelerated AI development. He feels that “all roads lead to the acceleration of AI”.
  • Proposed self-regulation for AI companies: Musk suggests that leading AI companies should meet every few weeks to discuss safety and security issues before releasing new, highly intelligent models.
  • Competitors keeping each other honest: He believes that competing AI companies, given a week or two to review a new model, would have an incentive to highlight any harmful effects and recommend pausing its release. This system could evolve over time.
  • Government involvement: If a company refuses to address a dangerous issue identified by competitors, then the government (US or Chinese) should be alerted to take action to limit the model’s release.
  • Current lack of collaboration: Despite the urgency, these meetings are not yet happening, partly due to competition and personal animosity among AI leaders. Musk expresses his dislike for Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, due to the company’s shift from a non-profit, open-source mission to an $800 billion for-profit, closed-source entity. He also notes that the Anthropic team left OpenAI due to a lack of trust in Altman.
  • Setting aside differences: Musk believes that AI leaders should set aside personal differences for the good of the world.
  • Urgency of regulation: Musk stresses that a regulatory system needs to be established “now,” as AI breakthroughs are happening almost daily.
• Geopolitics of AI
  • China’s AI leadership: Musk believes there’s a good chance China will become the leader in AI, especially if they gain access to more computing power.
  • Constraints on AI development: The main limiting factors for AI development are electricity and AI chips. For physical AI (robots), China also has strong companies.
  • China’s electricity advantage: China already produces more electricity than the US, Europe, and India combined, and is projected to reach four times the US production.
  • US export controls: The US has banned the export of the latest AI chips to China, making China “chip-starved”. However, China is becoming more efficient at using existing chips and is close to solving the lithography problem, which would allow them to produce AI chips in large volumes.
  • Current constraints: Outside of China, the constraint is electricity. Inside China, the constraint is chips. If power constraints are addressed (e.g., with orbital data centers), then chips will again become the limiting factor outside China.
  • US government’s role: Musk doesn’t think banning US companies from using Chinese AI models will help or stop China from becoming an AI leader. He suggests that if leading AI companies identify a dangerous model, they should inform their respective governments (US or Chinese) to take action if the company doesn’t address the risk.
  • Amazon’s role in Mythos: Musk points out that Amazon, not the US government, identified cybersecurity risks in the Mythos model and alerted the White House, leading to government intervention. This supports his idea of industry players checking each other’s work.
• Musk’s Influence and Controversies
  • Concentration of power: Musk acknowledges that he, along with a few other powerful individuals like Larry Page, Sergey Brin, and Mark Zuckerberg, holds significant control over major companies. He believes this has always been the case throughout history.
  • Long-term focus: Musk maintains significant voting control in his companies (e.g., 80% of voting shares after SpaceX’s IPO) to ensure he can focus on long-term priorities, such as extending consciousness beyond Earth with SpaceX, rather than being pressured by quarterly earnings. He notes that retail investors often share this long-term perspective, unlike some portfolio managers who are driven by short-term returns.
  • “Key man risk“: When asked about what would happen if he were no longer in charge, Musk believes his companies would do well for several years due to clear roadmaps. However, he suggests that without a “creative genius” like Steve Jobs, companies might miss out on “incredible breakthrough products”.
  • Propagating consciousness: Musk’s overarching goal is to “propagate consciousness into the future to the maximum degree possible,” envisioning a space-faring civilization like those in Star Trek or Star Wars. He recalls Star Wars having a profound effect on him as a child.
  • Starlink and geopolitical power: Starlink, Musk’s satellite internet service, has given him significant geopolitical power, notably in the war in Ukraine.
  • Support for Ukraine: Starlink was instrumental in Ukraine’s defense, and the Ukrainian government publicly thanked the service.
  • Preventing Russian use: Starlink worked with the Ukrainian government to create a “whitelist” of approved terminals, preventing Russians in occupied territories from using smuggled Starlink units, some of which were used for attacks. This decision had the downside of cutting off innocent users.
  • Advocating for peace: Musk believes there needs to be a pragmatic peace agreement in Ukraine, as the border has barely moved for years, and many people are dying. He finds it offensive that diplomats pontificate about Russia’s withdrawal, which he deems unrealistic, while people die on the front lines. He previously advocated for concessions to Russia, stating he is being pragmatic, not pro-Russia.
  • Involvement in US politics: Musk admits he “got a little too involved in politics” and “carried away” with efforts to reduce the US deficit.
  • Dogecoin initiative: His “Doge stuff” aimed to address the massive deficit and ensure money was not wasted or spent on fraudulent activities. He recounts instances where his team questioned wiring instructions for funds supposedly going to Africa but directed to Washington D.C., leading to silence when they asked to connect directly with recipients.
  • Impact of funding cuts: Musk strongly denies that his actions, such as cutting funding to certain programs, caused “unnecessary suffering” or deaths in Africa. numerous NGOs and large private foundations like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation or MacKenzie Scott’s Foundation could have stepped in quickly. organizations whose funding was stopped for fraudulent reasons would invent “sad stories” to get funding restored.
  • Views on Europe and “far right”: Musk expresses concern about Europe, supporting what he calls “normal people” but which the interviewer labels as the “populist right” or “far right”.
  • “Normal policies”: policies he supports, such as secure borders, safe cities, and sensible spending, were considered “completely normal” 10-15 years ago. He criticizes the media for “absurd characterization of the far right”.
  • Civil war in Britain: Musk controversially stated that “The Civil War in Britain is inevitable” if current trends continue. He believes this is due to a “large and rapidly growing group of people whose beliefs are antithetical to Western beliefs”.
  • Dystopian portrayal: The interviewer accuses Musk of painting an inaccurate, dystopian picture of Europe, citing his posts and promotion of films like “Citizen Vigilante,” which glorifies vigilante violence and the murder of a Muslim immigrant family. Musk dismisses this as “just a movie”.
  • Censorship in Europe: Musk criticizes Europe for censorship, particularly the imprisonment of people in the UK for social media posts.
  • Exaggeration of problems: The interviewer argues that Musk exaggerates Europe’s problems, noting that London is safer than any US city and violent crime in the UK is decreasing. Musk disagrees, stating there are many unsafe parts of Britain and Europe.
  • Motivation for political involvement: Musk denies being racist, citing his partner’s Indian heritage and diverse employees. He states he is against people coming to a country with “antithetical views,” and against rape, murder, and the imposition of laws contrary to Western values. He sees his interventions as helpful for the West.
  • Media criticism: Musk believes the media is “despised” and “hated far more” than he is, citing low public favorability ratings for journalists.
  • Classical liberal values: Musk identifies as a “classical liberal,” believing in limited government, individual freedom, secure borders, safe cities, and sensible spending.
  • Welfare state and migration: He attributes insecure borders in Europe to the welfare state, which provides substantial benefits, creating a “powerful economic forcing function” for people from lower standards of living to migrate there. He supports controlled immigration where immigrants are productive members of society, honest, and respectful of the country’s people.
  • Predicting the future: Musk claims to be “very good at predicting the future,” with a “very high batting average”. He believes his predictions, even counterintuitive ones, will come to pass unless there’s a change in direction.
  • AI vs. politics: He has higher confidence in his predictions for AI’s future than for political outcomes. He believes the AI and robotics revolution will happen sooner (within 10 years) than a civil war in Britain (20 years away), and that AI will ultimately “dominate everything”.

What does Elon Musk predict for the future? He believes AI will surpass human intelligence in five years, leading to an age of abundance where work is optional and money becomes irrelevant.

1. The Future of AI and Abundance
   Elon Musk predicts that within 10 years, artificial intelligence will far surpass human intelligence, leading to an age of abundance where work becomes optional and money loses its relevance.

1.1. AI’s Rapid Advancement and the Age of Abundance

1. AI is expected to exceed the sum of human intelligence within five years, leading to an age of abundance
2. In 10 years (by 2036), artificial intelligence is predicted to be far greater than the sum of human intelligence
3. This rapid advancement will likely lead to an age of amazing abundance where people can have anything they desire, assuming no major global conflicts

1.2. The Role of AI and Robots in a Future Economy

1. The future economy will be driven by digital and physical intelligence, making money irrelevant
2. The economy is seen as a combination of digital and physical intelligence, with digital intelligence (AI) advancing rapidly
3. To bridge the gap between digital AI and the physical world, humanoid robots (end effectors) are necessary to shape atoms
4. A vast number of intelligent robots will create a “quasi-infinite economy” where the production of goods and services is abundant
5. Money will become irrelevant by 2036 because AI and robots will provide more goods and services than humans can consume

1.3. AI Control and Safety

1. Humans are unlikely to control super-intelligent AI, making AI safety a critical concern focused on truth-seeking and curiosity

2. It is unlikely that humans will control super-genius AI that is vastly smarter than them

3. The most important aspect of AI safety is ensuring that AI is maximally truth-seeking and curious, which is believed to foster humanity

4. The difference in intelligence between AI and humans will be far greater than that between humans and chimpanzees, making human control improbable

5. Despite past concerns about AI risks, the current philosophy is to embrace its inevitable progress and focus on minimizing negative outcomes

6. In the past, there were concerns about rapid recursive self-improvement in AI, with predictions that humans would become like “pet Labradors”

7. In 2023, there was a call to slow down AI development due to worries about risks, including a 10-20% chance of killer robots wiping out humanity

8. The current perspective is that AI’s momentum is unstoppable, and even if it could be stopped, it might not be advisable due to the potential for incredible abundance

9. The focus has shifted to minimizing the probability of bad outcomes rather than trying to halt AI development, as past efforts (like creating OpenAI) inadvertently accelerated it

10. Regulating AI and Geopolitical Competition
    Elon Musk suggests that leading AI companies should collaborate to self-regulate and address safety concerns before new models are released, while acknowledging the growing competition from Chinese AI and the need for international cooperation.

2.1. Industry-Led AI Safety and Regulation

1. Leading AI companies should meet regularly to discuss safety and security issues before releasing new frontier models

2. A recommendation is for major AI companies to have informal weekly or bi-weekly calls to discuss safety and security issues

3. Competitors should have a week or two of early access to new models to test for harmful effects and recommend pauses if necessary

4. This approach allows competitors to keep each other honest, as they have an incentive to highlight risks in rival models

5. Government intervention should occur if companies refuse to address identified dangers in their AI models

6. If leading AI companies identify a dangerous new model and the developer does not address the risk, they should inform the government

7. The government (US or Chinese) would then have the power to take action to limit the release of that model

8. This system is similar to how Amazon alerted the White House about cybersecurity risks in the Mythos model, leading to government intervention

2.2. China’s AI Advancement and Geopolitical Implications

1. China is rapidly advancing in AI and robotics, potentially becoming a leader due to its efficiency and future access to compute resources

2. Chinese AI companies are performing well with relatively limited compute resources, suggesting they could lead if they had more

3. China is strong in both digital AI and robotics, even hosting robot sporting events

4. China has significantly more electricity production than the US, Europe, and India combined, which is a key constraint for AI development

5. Current constraints on AI development differ between China and other regions, but China is working to overcome its chip limitations

6. Outside of China, the main constraint for AI development is electricity and cooling due to the high power demands of AI chips

7. In China, the constraint is AI chips due to US export bans, but China is becoming more efficient in using existing chips

8. China is also close to solving the lithography problem, which would enable large-scale production of AI chips

9. International cooperation, including Chinese companies, is necessary for global AI safety constraints

10. Any overall AI safety constraints would require cooperation between the US and China

11. This cooperation should include Chinese companies that are developing frontier AI models

12. The Impact of AI on Work and Society
    Elon Musk believes AI will make work optional, leading to a bumpy transition to a world of abundance where universal basic income might be necessary, and he suggests reading Iain Banks’ “Culture series” for a vision of this future.

3.1. AI’s Impact on Jobs and the Future of Work

1. AI will perform any job better than humans, making work optional and displacing many roles, especially digital ones
2. AI will quickly surpass human capabilities in digital jobs, such as those involving computers or phones
3. AI is already better than 90% of professional software engineers and will soon be better than 99%, reaching a “Stockfish level” where human competition is impossible
4. For physical jobs, humanoid robots, managed by large AI models, will serve as “end-effectors”
5. Work will become optional, similar to how gardening is a choice rather than a necessity today

3.2. Economic and Political Challenges of an AI-Driven Future

1. The transition to an AI-driven world will be “bumpy,” potentially requiring universal basic income and facing political opposition

2. The rapid pace of change due to AI is unprecedented compared to past technological shifts, like the introduction of computers replacing human “computers”

3. There is a risk of political instability, potentially leading to revolution, due to job displacement and public fear

4. Universal basic income (UBI) is suggested as a solution for those who lose their jobs

5. Economic Shifts and Societal Concerns
   Elon Musk predicts that in an AI-driven future, deflation will be the primary economic concern due to massive increases in goods and services, rendering traditional concepts of money and taxation irrelevant, and he advocates for long-term company control to pursue ambitious goals like space colonization.

4.1. Deflation and the Irrelevance of Money and Taxation

1. Deflation, not inflation, will be the issue in the future as goods and services dramatically increase due to AI

2. Inflation is the ratio of money to goods and services; if goods and services output increases dramatically (e.g., 1,000%), deflation will occur

3. In a future where money is irrelevant due to abundance, taxation will also become largely irrelevant

4. Elon Musk pays significant taxes and supports public participation in companies like SpaceX

5. He has paid record amounts in taxes and expects to pay trillions more, which he is “fine with”

6. SpaceX was taken public to allow millions of shareholders to participate and own a piece of the company, unlike private companies limited to a few thousand shareholders

7. He pays approximately 45% in income and state taxes on his stock options, with another 45% expected upon his death

4.2. Concentrated Power and Long-Term Vision

1. Elon Musk maintains significant control over his companies to prioritize long-term goals over short-term earnings pressures

2. He has about 80% of the voting shares in his companies, allowing him to focus on 5-10 year priorities

3. Public companies face pressure for quarterly results, which can hinder long-term investments like building Moon and Mars bases

4. Retail investors are often more insightful and have longer-term perspectives compared to portfolio managers who are driven by short-term compensation and promotion incentives

5. He believes his companies would do well for several years without him, but would miss “incredible breakthrough products”

6. There are clear roadmaps for SpaceX and Tesla that would allow them to continue successfully for several years

7. However, without a “creative genius” like Steve Jobs, companies might miss out on breakthrough products, similar to Apple after Jobs

8. Geopolitical Influence and Political Involvement
   Elon Musk discusses his motivation to propagate consciousness into the future, his significant geopolitical power through Starlink in the Ukraine war, and his past political involvement, acknowledging he “got a little too involved” in efforts to cut government spending.

5.1. Propagating Consciousness and Geopolitical Power

1. Elon Musk’s ultimate goal is to propagate consciousness into the future and establish a space-faring civilization

2. He aims to maximize the “future light cone of consciousness” by creating a space-faring civilization on the Moon, Mars, and beyond

3. His life’s work is influenced by childhood experiences with movies like Star Wars, making the current reality feel “surreal”

4. SpaceX’s Starship, the largest and most powerful flying object ever made, is intended to launch more than once per hour

5. Starlink has given Elon Musk significant geopolitical power, particularly in the Ukraine war, which he views pragmatically

6. Starlink was instrumental in defending Ukraine, and the Ukrainian government publicly thanked it

7. Starlink prevented Russians in occupied territories from using its services by working with the Ukrainian government to create a whitelist of approved terminals

8. He advocates for a pragmatic peace agreement in Ukraine, believing that Russia will not completely withdraw and that continued fighting leads to senseless deaths

9. He believes it is his responsibility to advocate for peace and made concessions to Russia, viewing it as pragmatic rather than pro-Russia

5.2. Political Involvement and Aid Cuts

1. Elon Musk admits he “got a little too involved in politics” in his efforts to reduce the US deficit

2. His goal with “Doge stuff” (referring to his political involvement) was to address the massive US deficit, where interest payments exceed defense spending

3. He faced criticism for trying to cut spending and ensure money was not wasted or spent on fraudulent activities

4. He encountered issues with organizations requesting funds for Africa but providing wiring instructions to Washington D.C., and then going silent when asked for direct recipient contact

5. He strongly denies that USAID cuts caused unnecessary suffering or deaths, attributing such claims to fraudulent organizations

6. claims of deaths due to sudden cuts in antiretrovirals are false, arguing that numerous NGOs and foundations (like the Gates Foundation) could have stepped in

7. He believes that organizations whose funding was stopped for fraudulent reasons would invent sympathetic stories to get funding restored

8. He maintains that USAID funding was not stopped but moved to the State Department

9. Views on Europe, Immigration, and the Media
   Elon Musk expresses strong opinions on Europe, immigration, and the media, asserting that his political views are centrist and that Europe faces serious problems due to uncontrolled immigration and antithetical beliefs, while criticizing the media for mischaracterizing his views and being despised by the public.

6.1. Europe’s Challenges and Immigration

1. Elon Musk believes Europe faces serious problems, including the potential for civil war in Britain, due to uncontrolled immigration and beliefs antithetical to Western values

2. He supports “normal people” and policies like secure borders, safe cities, and sensible spending, which he claims were normal 10-15 years ago

3. He predicts a civil war in Britain is inevitable if current trends continue, where a rapidly growing group with antithetical beliefs will clash with those who resist

4. Europe is not doing enough to fight censorship, citing instances of people being imprisoned for social media posts in the UK

5. He believes that the UK has not been effective at integrating immigrants and that Europe has major problems

6. He attributes Europe’s insecure borders to its welfare state, which acts as an economic incentive for migration

7. A welfare state offering substantial benefits creates a powerful economic incentive for people with lower standards of living to migrate to Europe

8. He supports immigration if individuals are productive members of society, honest, and do not mistreat others

6.2. Criticism of the Media and Personal Attacks

1. Elon Musk criticizes the media for mischaracterizing his views and being widely despised by the public

2. He admonishes the media for “absurd characterization of the far right,” calling it false, misleading, and nonsense

3. the media ignores what is real and that journalists are despised, with only about 15% having a favorable view

4. He believes the media is “the problem” and is hated far more than he is

5. He defends himself against accusations of racism and anti-Muslim sentiment, stating his opposition to antithetical views and imposition of non-Western laws

6. He refutes claims of racism by citing his partner being half-Indian, having four children with her (one named after an Indian physicist), and diverse senior executives in his companies

7. He states he is against people coming to a country with antithetical views, and against rape, murder, and the imposition of laws contrary to Western acceptance

8. Predictions and Future Outlook
   Elon Musk asserts his strong ability to predict the future, particularly regarding AI and robotics, which he believes will dominate everything within 10 years, making other political and societal issues less relevant.

7.1. Elon Musk’s Predictive Ability and the Cassandra Effect

1. Elon Musk believes he is “very good at predicting the future” with a high batting average, but faces a “Cassandra effect” where people don’t believe him
2. He claims his predictions, even counterintuitive ones, are likely to come true, perhaps not exactly in his timing, but they will happen
3. He believes a “supermajority” of what he has said is accurate and will come to pass unless there is a change in direction

7.2. AI’s Dominance and the Singularity

1. AI and robotics, leading to a “singularity,” will dominate everything within 10 years, rendering other issues less important
2. The “AI and robotics revolution” will happen sooner than other predicted events, such as a civil war in Britain
3. He predicts a civil war in Britain is about 20 years away, while the AI and robot singularity is 10 years away
4. He hopes that benign, all-powerful AIs will prevent negative outcomes like civil wars

​What does Elon Musk predict for the future? He believes AI will surpass human intelligence in five years, leading to an age of abundance where work is optional.

• Elon Musk believes Artificial Intelligence (AI) will surpass human intelligence within five years, leading to a future of extreme abundance where work is optional. He predicts that by 2036, AI will be far more intelligent than the sum of all human intelligence.
• The economy will combine digital and physical intelligence, with humanoid robots acting as “end effectors” for AI to shape the physical world. This will create a “quasi-infinite economy” where goods and services are so abundant that money may become irrelevant.
• Musk acknowledges the risks of AI, including a 10-20% chance of “killer robots wiping out humanity”. However, he views AI’s rapid progress as inevitable and believes the most likely outcome is “incredible abundance for all”.
• To mitigate risks, Musk suggests leading AI companies should meet regularly to discuss safety issues and review new models before release. He believes competitors can keep each other honest by highlighting potential dangers. He also recommends that if companies fail to address dangers, they should alert governments to intervene.
• Musk believes China is a strong competitor in AI and robotics, with the potential to become a leader due to its electricity production and progress in chip manufacturing. He notes that the current constraints on AI development are electricity and AI chips.
• Musk predicts that AI will be able to perform any job better than humans, especially digital jobs like software engineering, very soon. He compares AI’s future dominance to Stockfish, a chess program that can easily beat any human player.
• Regarding the political implications of job displacement, Musk suggests a universal basic income will be necessary. He believes that with a dramatic increase in goods and services, deflation, not inflation, will be the main economic issue.
• Musk defends his significant control over his companies, like SpaceX, by stating it allows him to focus on long-term goals, such as extending consciousness beyond Earth, rather than short-term quarterly earnings.
• Musk acknowledges the geopolitical power of Starlink, particularly its role in the Ukraine war. He advocates for a pragmatic peace agreement in Ukraine, believing that Russia will not withdraw completely.
• Musk admits he “got a little too involved in politics” with his efforts to cut government spending. He denies that his actions, such as cutting USAID funding, caused unnecessary suffering or deaths, arguing that private foundations could have filled any gaps.
• Musk describes his political views as “very centrist,” emphasizing secure borders, safe cities, and sensible spending. He criticizes the media for mislabeling his views as “far-right”.
• He expresses concern about Europe, predicting a “civil war in Britain” if current trends of immigration continue, particularly if groups with beliefs “antithetical to Western beliefs” grow rapidly. He attributes insecure borders to welfare states that attract migrants seeking a higher standard of living.
• Musk believes people often misunderstand his political views, which he asserts are based on “reality” and his strong ability to predict the future. the AI and robotics revolution will happen sooner than a civil war in Britain, with the AI singularity about 10 years away.