El futur segons Elon Musk: IA, abundància, poder i política

Elon Musk, thank you so much for joining

me on the Insider. Thank you for having

us here at Tesla Giga. Um, 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 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. You

revolutionized space travel. 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. Yes. we can we can

>> uh probably most likely we will be um it

it's hard to imagine the future that

where there's not an overwhelm over

overwhelming amount of artificial

intelligence meaning like 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 in around five years

>> exactly 5 years.

>> Roughly 5 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 uh where

anyone can have anything they can think

of.

This is this is uh this may sound

preposterous, but well, here we are in

2026.

Let's see where we stand in 2036. Now,

of course, there are things that could

derail this like a a massive global

thermonuclear war or something like

that. Um, but assuming that there's not

World War II,

uh, I think I think we're headed for an

age of amazing abundance. So this is I

guess a message of of optimism

and uh 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 in the

SpaceX IPO perspectives it it looked as

though the overwhelming amount of the

revenue would be coming from AI from

Grock really it won't be transporting

things to space as SpaceX is now doing.

What is what will your companies be

doing in 10 years and how will they make

money?

>> Well, you can really think of the

economy as

uh digital and physical intelligence.

Um

so what we have right now advancing very

rapidly is digital intelligence.

Obviously with with AI that is uh it

seems almost with every passing week uh

there are more AI breakthroughs. It can

do something amazing that it couldn't do

before. Uh but it's still somewhat

confined to the digital realm. It

doesn't have endectors. You need the

endectors in the form of humanoid

robotics. Um human you need need a

basically a lots 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 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

quatti quasi infinite

economy.

So, so this is this is really the the

future is going to be very very

different from the past. There's 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 understand that and I'm I'm also

trying to kind of figure out what that

world will look like. But but in some

way you have

>> it's going to be pretty incredible.

>> Yeah, we'll we'll also do there are some

risks. We'll come to those. We'll come

to those. But just on on on how then

>> you make money because in the end people

are buying your shares because 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. [laughter]

I'm not sure that the people who bought

your shares think that money won't

matter in 2036. What do you want money

for?

You you want money for goods and

services,

>> right? You want money for obviously

food, housing, transport, entertainment.

Um well, if that is so abundant that uh

there's more that the robots and AI are

providing more goods and services than

you than any human could possibly

consume.

What do you need money for in that case?

>> But you're you're creating these robots.

Are you now and then you'll need money?

Sure.

>> Are you 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 Strap.

>> I think I think I would probably be

it would be an exercise in vanity to 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 wants us to be happy and

prosper. Um I think it probably will be

um my what my biological neural net

tells me is that the most important

thing for this for AI safety is to be

maximally truth seeeking 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 um an evolved

form of chimpanzeee. So it wasn't that

long ago that we're swinging through the

trees eating bananas um 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 um

reminiscent of the past. Um for all time

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. [laughter] 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 10

years ago, you were on a podcast. I

think it was with Neil Degrass Tyson,

and you said that the thing that

terrified you most was rapid recursive

self-improvement in AIs. Yes. And that

you said, and it really struck with me,

you said that we will just be the pet

labradors at the best.

Now you see

>> everyone are pretty happy creatures.

That's my experience.

>> But in 2023 you you c you asked for a

slowdown in air because you were worried

about it.

>> Well, I signed on to you know as one of

many like 500 people. I I I was just you

know one of many signatures on that

thing.

>> But but I think even last year you said

I was it Ted Cruz's podcast you said

there was a 10 to 20% chance of killer

robots wiping out humanity. Yeah.

>> So 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 I guess I've

come to

my my sort of philosophical conclusion

is to look on the bright side. Um I like

I I can't see any way to really stop

this incredible momentum of AI and

robots. Um and and at times I sort of

think well perhaps you know even if

there was a stop button we probably

shouldn't press it uh because

it was the most likely outcome is

incredible abundance for 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 is is I think my

philosophy at this point because I mean,

honestly, this there's it's it's there

seems to be just an inexurable

uh progress here in in AI and and in

robots that um

>> but you even if I wanted to stop it, I

don't I couldn't. Um,

>> do you think there's still a 10 to 20%

chance that killer robots mean the end

of humanity?

>> That's a high poom, as they say.

>> Well,

in the long run, we're all dead, of

course. um you know um so I mean so I

mean

>> according to the standard model of

physics the end of the universe is um a

long boring

sort of thin gray soup of uh gradual

cooling um meaning sort of the heat

death of the universe it's called. So

now if 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 [laughter] very Yeah, I

get that. But that could be a long way

and you're basically saying, very long

way.

>> If it's 10 to 20% in 10 years, you 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?

>> Yes. But

but let's say there's you can't do

anything about it. Okay,

>> that 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 you know created open AI as a

essentially a counterweight to to Google

because at the time they were um they

had more or less a monopoly on AI. Um

and then anthropic spun out of uh open

AI and 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 open AI

and then having Anthropic spin out of

that and now currently Anthropic is the

leader in AI. Um,

I mean the these actions have actually

resulted in

knock-on effects that accelerated AI,

which wasn't really my intention.

So, it just seems like

all roads lead to 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 you've 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 of model makers have been pushing for

different ways to try and minimize the

risks. Um, you know, just last week,

Deisabes came out with a proposal for a

private public regulator. Um, I think

you you said it was a good starting

point for discussions. I think 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

we I talked to him for a few hours

before he published his his piece was

that um the most immediate thing that we

could do is to have the leading AI

companies um at least just meet uh or

have a some sort of call once every few

weeks um and just

uh discuss

any safety and security issues that and

and and that before a breakthrough sort

a new frontier model is released,

something that sort of is is far more

intelligent than anything that already

exists that there's an opportunity for

the various competing uh AI companies to

uh test that model for

any harmful effects and to be able to

recommend pausing to address some of

these security issues. I I think that's

that's the that's sort of the easy quick

thing that we can do and it can it can

evolve to more than that over time. Um

but that's um that I think would be a

smart move.

>> But why why haven't you done that yet? I

mean there's like five of you, right? I

mean everyone knows the first name.

Dario, Demis, Sam. I mean, you don't all

like each other very much. Yeah. But

you're not all you're not all I mean

you're also all competing, right? You

all want to be first.

>> Yes. But that's that's where I think um

the competitors can keep it keep each

other honest. So meaning meaning like if

um 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 of AI to

know whether something should be

released or not. Um however the

competitors I think will can you know if

given sort of a week or two to review a

new model um can highlight issues and uh

and have an incentive to keep all all

the competitors have an incentive to

keep the others honest.

>> Do you have enough trust between you to

do that? I mean you don't much like each

other. Wouldn't wouldn't Samman just

think you're going to nick 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 uh or private

testing. It's not 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. Um I think that would

probably be a good thing to do. Um

>> but have you have you proposed it? I

mean, you could

to Demis

>> and I guess uh I I'll I'll talk to Daria

about it, too. Um

there's also of course um some very

competent uh Chinese AI companies um

that uh there's several of them several

that are that are very good. Um the new

Kimmy model

>> Kimmy K3. Yeah. The one that came out

last week has I mean it was almost as

good as Fable, right? So

>> well

um I I think realistically Fable is is

still uh clearly the smartest model. Um

I think and anyone realistically would

say that that's still the case but the

chem model is getting quite close to

fable. Um now anthropic had uh mythos

from which fable is derived. I think

they had that ready in February. So

they've got they've got what they call

I'm not sure what they call it but

mythos 2 or or fable 6 or something

something much better than what they had

in February. They almost certainly have.

Not almost certainly, they certainly

have right now. So, and I think they

could they they could release it at any

time.

>> Just before we get on to 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

um are doing as well as they are with a

relatively small amount of compute? Uh

it seems though as that if they had a

lot of compute um there's a good chance

that 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

like the the constraints on AI are

essentially electricity and AI chips.

Um, and then for physical AI, the

robots, uh, China's also got some very

good robot companies. In fact, they have

these like 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 the robots. Well,

and then they have the sort of like a

like a boxing match or fighting match

with um the robots which is quite

entertaining. And I I saw some video of

robot that got his head knocked off kept

fighting even with his head knocked off.

It looked pretty funny. But um I mean in

fact I think the the robot battles are

going to be quite entertaining to watch.

Um

>> but but just

>> so so China's China is very strong on

robots very strong on digital AI and and

if you look at electricity production

you say like AI is a function of

whatever whatever the limiting factor is

if 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 um and

is heading to and my guess is and it

gets to four times the electricity

production of the US which is roughly

proportionate to the population.

>> What should the US government do about

this? I mean if you you presumably it is

a little alarming if you have an

authoritarian regime far ahead in the

most powerful technology and clearly

what what the US government's been

trying to do is with the export controls

and so forth 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 they can pass some law

that prevents US companies from using um

Chinese models, but they can't stop the

rest of the world from from using them.

Um so it's it's not like the the US

government has authority over China or

the rest of the world. Um

>> do you think they should stop US

companies from using them? There's talk

of that right now, right?

>> I don't think that that helps.

Um, and that won't stop China from being

the leader in AI. The the really it's

for for digital intelligence, it comes

down to uh how much AI compute do you

have? Well, how many chips chips do you

have and how much power do you have? How

much electricity do you have? Um

so

the constraint right now I think is

actually slightly more on

power and cooling than it is on AI chips

because um the the power demands of the

AI chips are very very high. Um we'll

talk about water demands but the really

the water usage of AI is negligible

almost nothing. Um but the 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 and

like power and cooling and the

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 is somewhat chip

starved. So,

>> but they are becoming much more

efficient at using the chips that they

have and that one of the striking things

of Kim K3, right, is how efficiently

they

>> and and and China is also um I I think

closer than most people realize to

solving uh the lithography problem which

would enable them to make uh AI chips at

at very large volumes. So,

so I think there's,

you know, this shouldn't devolve into

just a China conversation, but um

but but so the current current

constraint is is electricity outside of

China. In China, the constraint is

chips. Uh once the once we address the

the power constraint with um AI data

centers in space, uh 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 that

they will need to work together if you

are going to try and I mean you

suggested you know the five makers here

working

>> uh probably it should include um 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 of the leading companies in AI

in AI say that this a new model is very

dangerous,

then they should inform the government

and and and and a new model is very

dangerous and that the company producing

that model is not taking steps to

address the danger,

then then they should alert the

government to take action um to limit

the

uh

release of that model. Um and that could

be action by the Chinese government or

action by the US government. Um it's

it's really it's really just the US

government and the Chinese government

that that have the power to take action

here.

>> But the I guess people would be worried

about relying on a group of model

builders to decide whether to do this.

is I mean if you look at what the US

government has done with with mythos

they stepped in because they were

worried about the cyber security risks

and they stepped in using you know

threat of export controls to you know

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 keep they should have that

power. But it it wasn't as though

someone in the government figured out

that Mythos uh was had had some scary

cyber security uh

risks. It it was Amazon.

>> Um 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 was worrisome

and that company was not doing anything

to address that risk, then that would be

the the moment for government to step in

>> and take action, which is literally what

just what occurred.

>> Why does all this have to happen?

>> Well, I think it would be good to do

that I think

immediately really. Yeah.

>> Yeah. That's what people keep telling

me. We we have to get this 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 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 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 g um

weekly or bi-weekly

um call and that there's that that

um there's maybe a week or two weeks of

of early access by competitors. And and

this is why I think the incentives work

is because if if you know competing

companies I think are likely to

understand if something is a security

risk and they're they're not going to be

shy about highlighting that that their

their competitor's model should be

delayed in release. does I think the

incentive structure does work quite well

there and and if the if and if and this

is sort of how it works with the motion

picture association you know the it's

it's an industry group that uh decides

how how movies should be rated you know

whe whether it's appropriate for for

young children or or not. Um and that's

uh that seems to have worked quite well.

So um and and and then you really just

ask have ask the government to intervene

if if some if a company is doing

something very dangerous and refuses to

take action to reduce the danger.

>> Do you think this is a 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 on on social media

constantly. So do you do you think you

can do that with people that you dislike

that that where there seems to be such

kind of personal vitrial between some of

these leaders?

Um,

yes. Well, I'm I'm not a fan of Sam

Alman because um

>> 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 and um you

know owned by the world uh 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 uh the exact opposite of what I

donated the money for that that's my

issue I think it's a legitimate one

>> um and then Daario I think also is not a

fan of Sam Alman because he felt

In fact, the reason the anthropic team

left OpenAI is because they they didn't

trust Sam Alman. Otherwise, anthropic

wouldn't exist. They would still be at

OpenAI. Um

I I think Dario is a very principled

person. He cares about things a lot. Uh

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 seem like they're well-intentioned.

Um, and uh, and the road to hell is, I

think, mostly paved with bad intentions.

There are a few well-intentioned paving

stones in there. So, we we don't want to

be complacent. Um, but, uh, you 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 that's a very good thing

for the rest of us to hear.

>> Yeah. Um

>> can I can we turn to one other risk that

people worry about particularly I think

ordinary Americans where you know AI has

become incredibly unpopular 75% of

people are worried about it and I think

they worry about their jobs

>> and if you look at Dario has said

famously what 50% of entry- level jobs

entry level white collar jobs will be

gone within a few years

>> you're building humanoid robots.

>> Yes. He 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

[laughter]

you know so I think he um I think

probably in the future we'll choose his

words differently. Um

>> but what

>> because obviously if 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 and 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 displace people from

jobs because it is as you say if in 10

years it's more it's there's more

intelligence artificial intelligence

than any human intelligence.

>> Yes. And if you are and I think you're

ahead of everyone at least in this

country on

>> powering humanoid robots that's that's

also going to be

>> kind of factory work.

>> So do you are you part 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. Um

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 of

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 it will

easily beat Magnus Carlson 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 Carlson. 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

>> everything

>> everything

>> everything but what about you for 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 is

more or less an endeector. It would have

some amount of local intelligence but be

[clears throat] managed by a large AI

model. Um

and uh

I and I've said many times I think work

is going to be optional.

So I mean let me mean so so I think

maybe maybe a good a good uh

comparison would be um gardening like

you don't have to garden you know you

don't like you you don't have to grow

vegetables in 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 uh less perfect. your

tomatoes not going to be as plump and

juicy as the ones at the store. They

they'll, you know, look a little

artisal. Um, but, you know, if if you go

to a friend's house and they they make

dinner at and with vegetables from their

garden, it's it's a nice touch.

>> So, that's this is 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 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 returns to this

intelligence to people like you, you're

the wealthiest man in the world.

>> What 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 high income,

>> but how are you going to get there?

Let's talk about the politics of this

cuz right now

>> we if we look at the political pressures

in most countries people are very very

worried about this very against 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 playing out.

>> I mean it will be a bumpy road. I'm not

suggesting it will be

sort of that everything will be smooth

sailing here. Um,

so

I mean there are many jobs that used to

exist that don't exist because of

computers. I mean the the word computer

used to refer to a person doing

computations like that used to be a job

description of a person. And you can see

pictures online of um of buildings that

have entire skyscrapers of just filled

with people doing calculations to to do

things like calculate the interest on

your bank balance.

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 so

the the thing that's different here is

that the the pace of change is radically

accelerated. So, but still people, you

know, some people were upset that they

their job of calculating bank interest

[clears throat]

would would no longer be available. Um,

but now I think mo there's you be

hardressed to find people who want to do

that job. Um, so I I think I I have a

suggestion for say what say science

fiction

books people might want to read to get a

sense of what the future will be like.

And the the best envisioning of an AI

future that I've read are the books by

Ian Banks, the culture books.

>> I'm just reading accession. So I' I've

thanks to you I've 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 Ian Banks as you

know was a socialist. Um Ian Banks had a

very different political philosophy.

>> I 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 con 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 have do you need to pay more

tax? Do you have much higher taxes on

capital so that you fund what some kind

of universal income? Otherwise what do

people live off?

I I think that 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 were relevant in the past,

they will not be relevant in the future.

So like inflation is simply the ratio of

money to the to to goods and services.

So if the goods and services output

increases dramatically if it increases

you know a th000%. You can increase the

you can literally print or these days

change the database print money it's you

create money in the in the database um

provided the creation of that money uh

is less than the rate at which goods and

services increase um you you will

actually have deflation. So I'll make a

prediction which is that deflation will

be the issue not inflation

because because as the output of goods

and services increases um if if the

output of goods and services increases

faster than the money supply you will

have deflation.

>> I'm actually I'm perfectly willing to

believe that. You may well be right. No,

absolutely. You may well be right. But I

I'm I'm really

>> hung up on how we get from the current

polarized, angry, fearful

policy we have now to this nirvana. And

and I think you could you can paint a

picture where people are so scared by

this,

>> you 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. is the kind of

economy crumbles because people are so

worried about a future which does sound

quite scary as you describe it. So how

do you how do you handle the politics

now?

>> It's exhilarating and terrifying

>> but if if you were in Yeah.

>> honestly and if you ask me on any given

day I I in fact even intraday I've gone

from exhilaration to terror regarding

AI. So I I want to be clear. I'm not

like I'm not sort of some,

>> you know, I'm not trying to be sort of

candid here and and just 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 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

government

>> probably would be good to for us to

>> coordinate and and just highlight issues

that we see in each other's models um to

mitigate

>> downside risk?

>> What should the government should you be

paying more tax to fund more transfer

programs?

>> Well, first of all, I do I do pay a lot

of tax. Um,

>> so um

I in fact I um I set a record for the

most amount of taxes ever paid by a by a

human.

>> That's also because you're the world's

richest man.

>> Well, even before that. [laughter]

So my guess is that I will pay many

trillions in tax 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 t in a

future where money is relevant. 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

before going public. So as a public

company um we can have millions of

shareholders as a private company we

limited to just a few thousand

shareholders. Um,

so

>> do you think there should be

distribution of shares like you know the

Alaska wealth fund is there for which

could you imagine a world and some

people talk about the Trump accounts

being a kind of vehicle for this that

you a share of your equity goes to

ordinary Americans

>> right well in the taxes that like that I

that I pay I mean I'll I'll you know so

for my stock options I pay 40%

uh income tax on a national basis and

then because I spend I don't know about

30% of my time in California there about

I pay another sort of roughly a third of

the California state taxes which is are

now around 15%. So, so I I pay about 45%

in taxes just so people know know this,

you 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 that that will

be taxed. Um, so at the end of the day,

it probably I'll have a quarter of of

what I what I whatever I have. But the

um I 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.

So

it's not um that that's pretty much all

it gets me and until I guess the AI is

so smart that it's b it's it's in charge

and and that point controlling companies

won't really matter. Well, let's talk

about that because I think one of the

other things that worries people about

the direction we're heading in, and I'm

going to caricature it, but people think

that the direction of 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 I [laughter]

think it was like that.

>> When wasn't that the case?

>> It was ever thus, but it was ever it is

a 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. Um after the

IPO you basically you have what 80% odd

of voting shares and as I understand it

>> you can only be removed by a vote of

shares which you yourself control. So so

tell me if I'm wrong but I think

companies in that bucket by the way the

AI companies like um Google's in that in

that bucket. Alphabet is controlled by

Larry and Sergey. Um

>> but I think yours is more extreme. the

inability the same level of they they

have um voting control of of that

company. Uh Mark Zuckerberg has control

of a matter um and and uh you know Mark

is trying very hard on the AI front and

I think probably will will also have a

leading AI he's made I think he released

one last week. Um so I think he's he's

he he'll be one of the you know 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

by longterm I just mean in the 5 to 10

years. Um, so one of the challenges with

being a public company is that is are

the sort of the pressure to to have uh

great results every single quarter, but

and and and to not really invest in

things that may only pay off in 5 to 10

years. And um you know the case of

SpaceX I need I I want to extend

consciousness beyond Earth and and have

a

growing civilization on the moon, Mars

and elsewhere in the solar system. the

return I 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 or and a

Mars base and then people are like I you

know I'm going to get all this pressure

for like well you missed your earnings

this quarter because you spent too much

on Mars. I'm like yes by the way that

was in the in the S1 perspectus and it's

is literally listed as a thing we will

do. Um, so but but but they still get

grumpy about these things, you know, cuz

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 now we're going to punish

you and and the short sellers all

descend upon you and you get a lot of

pressure that

>> Yeah. So, I just need some way to sort

of,

>> you know, say like, listen guys, we're

we're going to focus on 5 to 10 year or

longer time horizon investments. this

will depress our short-term earnings.

But the long I mean if you take a

long-term view and there are investors

we have many investors that do take a

long-term view. In fact, I'm a big fan

of the the retail investors. In fact, I

find our retail investors um on balance

have the have the they're very

insightful and and have very long-term

views. Um but but part of this comes if

you say what's the incentive structure

is the for portfolio managers it's sort

of understandable why why they put so

much pressure on on a on quarterly

earnings because um their their

compensation and their um and whether

they get promoted or not is dependent on

how their portfolio does and they they

have they only have a few years to to

make these decisions. Um and then

they're evaluated based on those

decisions over the course of sometimes

only a year or less. And uh and so since

since they're under pressure to have

immediate returns, they then put

companies under pressure to have

immediate returns. So once you in

understand the incentive structure, the

behavior naturally follows.

>> What about though keyman risk? I mean

what happens you know I heaven forbid

but what happens if you get run over by

the proverbial bus tomorrow you know it

is you to you have total control over

these companies do you have a plan for

how they would progress without you?

>> I I think they would actually

do very well for for for several years

um

and you know there there's a clear road

map for or space map I should say for

SpaceX. Um, and there's a road map

actually for Tesla literally. Um, so I

think I think there's, you know, if you

look at Apple after Steve Jobs, you

know, Steve Jobs had, you know, he he he

had a strategic vision and a bunch of

products that um that that he had had

ideas for and Apple has done very well.

Um, but but but when you don't have a

creative genius like Steve Jobs,

you don't you you what what you miss

what what Apple's missing are the

incredible breakthrough products.

>> Yeah.

>> So they make amazing phones, you know,

great computers. Um, but Apple hasn't

come up with a sort of Steve's Jobs

Steve Jobs level breakthrough product.

>> 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, you know,

create a colony on Mars. So, we have

multilanetary 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 you sound much more

excited about using the moon as a base

from which to, you know, pop out orbital

uh AI satellites. Have you shifted your

attention away from Mars or are you as

interested in colonizing Mars as you

ever were?

>> I I'm 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 big as we could, you know,

like that, you know, there's there's an

exciting future where there's where

we're a space fairing civilization out

there among the stars and and the the

great things that are envisioned in the

non-disystopian sci-fi books and movies

come become real one day. I sort of want

the Star Trek you know, Star Wars

future. The 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

>> Oh, blew my mind, honestly. I was I

think I was 6 years old and um I was

like, this is the greatest thing I've

ever seen.

>> Has your life been about making that

happen?

>> Yeah, it I mean it I didn't think it

would be, but at the when I was young,

but um and my my life feels somewhat

surreal. like I can't believe these

things are actually happening, you know.

Um

>> I think the world

>> makes me believe in simulation theory.

>> Yeah.

>> Where it's like, well, this

like the things I'm doing are so

preposterous that um

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 I'm just sort of

struck that when I when I I am as as

blown away by this world as you are and

I'm I watch it from a from a much more

naive level, but for me the whole

evolution of AI and the capabilities of

these models is in and of itself so

mind-blowing.

>> It's pretty much happening as I as I

thought thought it would.

>> Is it?

>> Yeah.

>> Oh, that's interesting. [laughter]

Um

and not just me, many people um

predicted this. I think Ray Koswell

predict Ray Koswell'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 I'm one

of your customers. Excellent product.

>> Great.

>> But without them, the Ukrainians would

have been in serious serious trouble.

And

>> obvious the Ukrainian government has

publicly thanked Stalin many times for

being instrumental in

uh defending Ukraine.

>> And you recently decided to prevent the

Russians in the occupied territories

from having access to Starink. Um, well,

no, we we we were never at any point

selling Starink to Russians. Um,

>> but they were grabbing it, right? They

were using it and you've now stopped

them from doing that. Well, what they

they they essentially got Starlink units

um that they ordered through Ukraine and

then and then smuggled them into uh the

uh into eastern Ukraine where the

Russians are um and were then using them

um in some cases for um attacks. Um now

the

in order to address this um what we

worked with the Ukrainian government to

create a white list of approved Starling

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 for 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. H h h h h h h h h h h h

h h h h h h h h h How does that feel?

And is it right that you should have

that power?

>> Well, I I'm not sure we we're

determining the ultimate outcome of the,

you know, that 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 2 or 3 years now the border has

barely moved and um and every day there

are lots of people dying at the front

line and

um and I think there's a lot of wishful

thinking here of of people saying well

Russia should completely withdraw

But this is not realistic. Um I really

think there needs to be some

um

you know a a a a piece that that that is

that you know we have to be pragmatic

about this. What we can't what I think

would be terrible is if if there's if

there's another three years of people

dying senselessly at the front lines um

with with and you have to say like well

You know, how do you explain to the the

the children of of the men that 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 in you know in luxurious

places while people are dying at the

front lines and who who pontificate

about how Russia should withdraw but

they're not going Russia Russia's not

going to withdraw. So there really needs

to be an accepted piece along along

those lines. Um,

>> 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 I've been advocating peace

for a long time. I, you know, I I I

posted a few years ago that that that

there really needs to be some concession

here to Russia. Um, this is not me being

pro-Russia, I'm just being pragmatic. um

or people will die for years uh with

nothing achieved and that is exactly

what happened.

>> I don't know. I mean the Ukrainian are

doing

>> the Ukrainians are doing pretty well

right now at

>> you know with their incredible drone

capacity hitting inside Russia and the

and the kind of general consensuses that

you know the the the balance of the war

is shifting. But my point is not so much

about

>> is not going to retake those

territories. it is not going to happen.

>> My interest is really on whether you

think given that you you have through

Starlink you have an incredible power

whether it's appropriate

that you should wield it and that's

quite rare that an individual actor has

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 as

it won't surprise you, I I think that

the Russian aggression was, you know,

for many many reasons an appalling

aggression and I I think that that was

an important thing that you did.

>> Yeah. I mean, I did a a very deep dive

into the background of that conflict to

understand exactly what was going on.

Um, and um,

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, you know, you've you've

played a big role domestically,

politically here. You spend a lot of

money on Donald Trump's re-election.

After the election, you got very

actively involved, you know, through

Doge, you tried to cut a lot of

spending, reshape the government.

How do you feel that wasn't hugely

successful in the sense that, you know,

there wasn't nearly as much spending cut

as you tried? How do you, as you look

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. Got carried away,

frankly. Um,

>> so the um,

you know, the the goal with the sort of

Doge stuff was was to try to do

something about the 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 war and the uh and

and intelligence in the US uh that is

smaller than the interest payments on

the debt. So we we we we need to sort of

take a close look at spending um and

make sure that uh money is being spent

in sensible ways and that it is not

wasted or spent on on on fraudulent

activities. Um and um I got a lot of

flack from this for this obviously. Um

but the the people don't understand just

how um

simple it was for for the Doge team to

approve payments. Um if if we h

literally we we we just asked to have

the contact information of the recipient

um or some evidence that say money was

going to um its intended purpose. Um but

over and over that we've told we need to

wire money for some sort of important

cause in Africa and we're like okay but

the wiring wiring instructions are to

deote and tuish in DC in 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 and then we

get silence

>> I have we don't need to relitigate Doge

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 I mean I think there is it

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 you don't buy that at all.

>> It it caused a lot of complaining.

>> 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 suddeness with which

>> zero?

>> I just don't think that's right. I just

don't think my I mean I've had people

reporting in Africa who

>> how many NOS's are there that could that

could that could step in because bear in

mind this it was it happened quickly. So

this and there are literally tens of

thousands of NOS's.

>> Yeah. Not everyone functions as fast as

you do. If if if if funding is cut off

for antiretrovirals overnight and it

just stops, then people will die when

they don't have access to them and it

just

>> No, no, only if they cannot get funding

for that. But with the Gates Foundation

has $50 billion.

>> What's what what about them?

>> What about any one of a number of

organizations? What about um the uh um

>> what

Mackenzie whatever her last name is used

to be uh gave $50 billion. What about

that? But you know, let's let's be

practical. In many of these countries,

USAD was the biggest funer. 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 funer of of health care

system. So I I I am I'm very sure of of

regime change

>> and 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

that were claims of this. These claims

are false. They're nonsense and and

absolute nonsense. But but obviously

just for when funding is stopped for

fraudulent organizations or for

something, do you think they're going to

say do you think they're going to say,

"Well, we 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. I think

you can I actually have a lot of

sympathy for the change of the aid

regime that the US under the Trump

administration has precipitated.

However, I think the pace and the

suddeness 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 there there

are are the amount of funding we're

talking about uh is far less than what

can be done than what can be supported

via private uh via foundations like the

Gates Foundation uh or Mackenzie Bas's

Foundation. Um she's given away tens of

billions of dollars. Um the Gates

Foundation has tens of billions of

dollars.

>> Uh they are capable of acting very

quickly. Um, and if they didn't, I would

say they're equally responsible.

>> I see. Okay.

>> Obviously.

>> All right. Fair point. Um,

>> zero people.

>> I hear you loud and clear.

>> Zero.

>> Hear you loud and clear.

>> Obviously,

>> uh, domestically, you you stepped away

from Doge. It 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 is a this

administration on balance uh is as

excellent.

No, no administration is perfect, but

it's uh 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

you support

>> I mean every once in a while I post

something

>> it's reasonably frequently it's not once

in a while but but I'm because I'm

genuinely interested in this as someone

who lives in Europe lives in London.

>> Yeah.

>> Uh you paint a picture well 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 falsely.

>> You think is the normal person. Okay.

>> Yes. Um,

>> literally you could you could go back uh

10 or 15 years and these these these

policies were completely normal. In

fact, you you one of the one of the

tricks I think is funny. What I think is

quite funny is to like take a speech

from Obama and Hillary and then and then

go to someone and say uh who's sort of

um you know on the sort of what I call

the lunatic left um and say what do you

think of the speech by Trump? Like oh

wow he's the worst person ever. actually

that was a speech by Obama or actually

that was a speech by Hillary.

>> I I I agree. No, I agree that the center

of gravity in this country has shifted

certainly the Democratic party shifted

to the left. But that's not what I'm

talking about. I'm talking about people

like Rupert Low people. It's actually

just normal people. Um it's just normal

people. It's just normal people. And um

the and and here are the principles and

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

are our are are far right fringe. And

and I would like to just admonish you

and the media for the absurd

characterization of the farright. It is

false and misleading and nonsense.

Please keep this part in.

>> We'll keep all of this in. But let me

[laughter] 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 is it?

Close to 250 million followers on X.

>> Yeah.

>> You say things like

>> popular guy

>> quote civil war in Britain is

inevitable. Just a question.

>> Yes.

>> I mean, when were you last in the UK?

>> Um, a few years ago.

>> Exactly. So, so I live there. I'm there

the whole time. That is not

>> You live at a close existence.

>> No, I don't actually. And the numbers

also disprove what you say.

>> What numbers?

all the numbers 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 you have painted

and because you have so many followers,

so many Americans believe it, a a kind

of view that Europe in 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 if you have uh a large uh and

growing rapidly growing uh group of of

people whose beliefs are antithetical to

western beliefs. Um at some point there

will be a reckoning that that they they

will they will try to implement their

views and those who oppose it will

oppose it and that's what you call civil

war.

And obviously this is the trend. Um and

uh and and you absolutely do live in a

cloistered existence. And if you'd like

we can go on a tour of Britain.

>> Sure. Very happy to come on a tour of

Britain.

>> And then and you will see my country

that I live in all the time and you

haven't been to a few years ago.

>> I've been there literally a hundred

times.

>> But when was the last time?

>> Literally a few years ago.

>> You know why I this exercises me?

because you have really shaped opinion

about the UK and so many Americans I

come across and I have conversations

with and they will be and I just had one

the other day along the order of oh

London such a dangerous place how can

you know there are sort of grooming

gangs everywhere there are there's

violence everywhere this is a picture

that people get from things that you

post or that are posted on X and for

example you're you're posting for what

was it 48 hours of Citizen Vigilante

that film which you know paints

dystopian. I've watched it.

>> Yes,

>> it was not fun. I watched it yesterday.

It's not a very good movie, but it's

also paints a dystopian picture of

Europe and it glorifies vigilante

violence. It glorifies the murdering 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 it's a movie. Um, and

it's worth watching.

>> You're clearly suggesting Europe is

dystopian place and you

>> Yes. I mean, why aren't you more uh

doing more to fight censorship in

Europe? Why aren't you

>> doing seem to be doing nothing to fight

censorship in Europe?

>> That's not true. I am I think that

>> they put people in 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 bad. And I think if you

and I agree with you, but I don't think

you have to glorify vigilante violence

and kind of you know 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 we should do a tour of the UK.

>> Yes. And one of

>> the UK has actually been very good at

integrating immigrants. The UK has a is

is 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 is not. It

really is not what you are describing to

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

allows people to say things that are

[clears throat] wrong. But your point is

not that you're not 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

let's come to that point

>> because the media keeps ignoring what's

ignoring reality.

>> I don't think that's true either. I

really

>> and they're programmed by the TV and

conventional media.

>> But and why are you this is I guess even

to me sort of the 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 a an

ongoing participant in the worst kind of

tribalism

uh you know cesspit of social media.

Like how does that fit? Are you you know

on the one they're two very different

views of the world. Yeah, I don't think

they're inconsistent.

>> But why do you do the latter one, the

tribalism? I mean, people say that

you're a racist. People say that you're,

you know, there's all kinds 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 fermenting?

>> My partner is is is um she's half Indian

and my my and I have four children with

her. um you know um

one of them was named after a famous

Indian physicist um so I I would say I'm

not racist and also uh the you know if

you look at the people that are employed

at my companies um you know we have

senior executives of all races uh there

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 if if people are coming to

a country with

antithetical views

um I I am against that.

I I'm against that you know I'm against

um

I I I'm against rape and murder. I'm

against uh the

imposition of

rules and laws that are

contrary to what we've

come to accept in the west.

Um

and um

and I think it's a it's it's a crying

shame that the sort of traditional media

like you um uh 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 I I think that, you

know, the constraints on freedom of

speech in 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 AFD, Alice Videl, whom I've met,

is a perfectly thoughtful person, but in

her party are some real neo-Nazis, are

some really, really awful people. And

your blanket support of this kind of

party with 240 million followers means

that you have a power in Europe that I

think perhaps you don't realize the

scale of impact you have, but you can

>> I hope 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, he

thinks he has a right to influence our

politics. It makes people 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

Western?

>> Maybe maybe some people do lo me. I And

that's and that's probably true. I don't

care. Um the uh but but the fact that uh

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 uh more than you realize.

Do you realize the media is despised? Do

do you realize that that journalists how

the view of journalists is

is like it's it's like a favorable view

of journalists is like 15%.

>> I do know that in the United States.

>> So so 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 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

helps this makes it worse.

>> I don't think so.

I think I think you're the problem. The

media um and and speaking of loathing,

you're loaded far more than I am and you

don't seem to even realize that.

>> I think I think very few people know who

I am relative to you. So I don't think I

play in the same game. the media

collectively. Um, so I mean, you're

hated.

Do you even do you even know that? You

probably don't.

>> I like to think that I'm aware of my own

personal shortcomings and the economist