现在有请能源部长朱棣文，以及创新者加洛尔、Tesla 首席执行官兼产品架构师、SpaceX 首席执行官和 PayPal 创始人阿隆·马斯克。阿伦，感谢你加入我们，加入我们。我们让阿伦坐这里，斯蒂芬坐那里，那会很棒。那么我们将会，呃，再次找点乐子，和两位巨头进行一场稍微、稍微有点非正式的交谈。嗯，我想我会先来点有趣的，也许稍微有点，呃，大胆。我了解到，呃，呃，斯蒂芬，你的墙上挂着一块诺贝尔奖牌，呃，而且有人说，嘿，当你与国会打交道、谈论自动减支时，也许你应该把它从墙上取下来，在和那位卡托开会时说，嘿，看看我有什么，你有什么。坏主意，坏主意，还没有

对你奏效。嗯，我还听说，在其中一场就职晚宴上，Will I Am 走到你面前说，你知道，斯蒂芬，你真的真的很酷，但要变得，呃，更酷，有一个办法是把你的名字改成 MC Energy。接受这个名字，这是真的吗？呃，是真的。而且那天晚上你确实四处走动，而且，而且，而且想，好吧，我们有……我原本想从这里开始。阿伦，很高兴你和我们在一起。嗯，从加利福尼亚过来。我想以一种，呃，有趣的方式开始这场谈话，因为斯蒂芬，你因，嗯，投资和思考如何从非化石燃料能源转向可再生能源而闻名，努力思考如何系统地做到这一点，把科学、创新者，呃，以及政府资源汇集到一起完成这件事。你很快就要离任了，呃

我想你已经宣布将要离职了。嗯，阿隆·马斯克在这里，他是个相当有创新精神的人，呃，他获得过很多奖项，而我只是有点想这样开始谈话，问问你：如果奥巴马总统给你打电话说，你愿意接替他的工作吗，呃，你会有哪些不同的做法？哇。嗯，好吧，我，我，我实际上认为史蒂夫做得相当出色。我想，要做得比他更好，对我来说会很困难。所以，嗯，而且我认为担任任何部长都是一个非常、非常艰难的职位，呃，也是一个无论你做什么工作，我想都往往会受到远多于赞扬的批评的职位。所以，嗯……好吧，你说得再深入一点。这不是一个我会向往的职位。你是个年轻人，你已经彻底改变了

支付，你在汽车和电池领域带来了很多变革，现在你正在彻底改变我们进入太空的方式，而你做这些，一部分是依靠科学家和其他创新者以及一些政府投资，但你的步伐超过了政府所能做到的。所以我的，我的问题不是一个挑起纷争的问题，而是，如果你能够不受那个、那个、那个环境的限制，如果你基本上能够向前跃进，而且你知道，斯蒂芬也是一位才华横溢的创新者，当然还是物理学诺贝尔奖得……但是什么造就了你？你是怎么，你怎么能够做到这些政府发现自己不太能这么快完成的事情？好吧，我，我是说，我认为理解政府的一种方式，是把它基本上看作

一家大公司，或者最大的一家公司。嗯，而通常，呃，大公司在激进创新方面要比小型、较小的公司更困难。这个规律有一些例外，比如 Apple，但，但一般来说确实如此：公司越大，执行创新就越、越、越困难。嗯，现在，在私营部门，有一些办法可以绕过这一点，比如收购那些、那些、那些、那些确实从事激进创新的小公司，或者拥有一个，呃，比如说像史蒂夫·乔布斯这样的人，他在推动，嗯，激进创新方面就是坚持不懈地强硬。嗯，但是，呃，但我认为，一般来说确实如此：公司或实体越大，就越难以，呃，呃，开展激进创新。

好吧，斯蒂芬，在我看来，坐在这里参加一场 arpa 会议，arpa 是一个非常有创新性的构想，涉及如何从政府那种非常庞大、也许我会说是规避风险的，呃，环境中走出来；而这里有 rpe，它真正关注的是鼓励，你知道，也许不是风险，而是投资创新。我们很希望你用一点时间谈谈，你认为这项试验进展得怎么样，还需要做些什么，呃，特别是在下一代能源的，的能源领域。好吧，它，嗯，你知道，沿用，呃，公司的类比，嗯，我有一位首席执行官，呃，也就是总统；呃，我有，呃，一个非常多元化的董事会，共有 535 人。国会是个庞大的董事会。但是，但是在其中，你可以在机构内部做很多事情。嗯，当然

让 RP 运转起来，这当然是由国会投票通过、由总统提出的，你知道，获得了很多两党支持。但一旦有了资金，可以说让我们开始吧，你随后就可以在机构内部提出，它怎样才能有所不同。因此我们走进去时想着，这可以成为一个新的范例，展示我们希望许多能源部项目如何开展。而且，呃，是的，你将不得不承担风险，这是项目设计的一部分，也被写进了，呃，《美国竞争法》，那种理念被写进了《迎接风暴挑战》。嗯，这是研究，这是开发，而且它非常……我们并不，我们不期望所有这些事情都能奏效，但它们是短期出击。这不是长期的事情，这是一次短期出击，进入其中，看看它是否会

奏效，看看它会不会成为一记本垒打。我们想要本垒打。现在 3 年以后，有没有本垒打？好吧，也许还没有，但有人正在绕过二垒和三垒，所以看起来不错。呃，因此，而且 RP 的文化还有一些非常不同的东西。你有一群项目经理坐在一起，他们不是礼貌地介绍自己的项目并为自己的项目辩护，而是会听取其他每个人所说的话，然后开始说，好吧，我不太确定我相信那个，这个问题呢，那个问题呢？这被描述为建设性对抗，那正是我们在大约实验室得到的东西。呃，你知道，你不会完全等到轮到自己，你会去旧讨论，是组合的智慧

小组中的人会发展出那些想法，而这非常不同。当然，随后还有一种精神：我的天，这将会是某种特别的东西。到目前为止，它确实非常特别。如此多的成果诞生于贝尔实验室，而，而且你当然也曾在贝尔实验室工作。arpa 实质上是在接替……今天已经没有贝尔实验室了，所以这是不是……我感兴趣的是，这对美国经济是否是一件非常有害的事，这是不是 RP 现在正在复制的东西，以及你是否认为，将这种建设性对抗以某种方式制度化很重要？你如何看待那种推动国家，呃，向前发展的基础研究大规模投资的未来？好吧，公平地说，它们非常、非常不同。贝尔实验室的研究和开发最终是为了服务于

公司，而且他们有财务盈亏底线。RP 是……我们是其他创新者的资助者。但是我所谈到的巴普斯·贝尔，呃，可以完全相同。我们纳入这个项目的那些人的素质确实非常出色，因此贝尔精神的那一部分是存在的。但是，但是你知道，我们，我们不是在那里做生意、去，去，去做某件事；我们在那里是为了，呃，资助，非常资助私营部门会接手并继续推进的创新。你知道，阿隆，稍微想一想今天的议程，它本质上是关于创新的。不久前，你实际上在一个论坛上，嗯，分享过一些看法。那个论坛由《大西洋月刊》组织，在圣迭戈举行，嗯，是我们称为“大西洋遇见太平洋”的一个论坛。你在那里发言并说，你知道

有 3 个真正的领域驱动着你的兴趣：一个是互联网，呃，另一个是可持续能源，另一个是让生命成为多行星生命，对吧？嗯，你愿意稍微谈谈让生命成为多行星生命这一部分吗？呃，那也许稍微偏离主题，呃，但是，但是我想我可以稍微谈谈。嗯，不是 NE，而是谈谈如何到达那里。你知道，这里谈的是火箭、太空、电池和汽车方面的创新；我想它们在你的头脑中以某种方式整合在一起，成为改变我们生活方式、创造可持续性以及思考迁移，你知道，迁移到其他领域的组成部分。好吧，真正……我是说，当，当我在大学时，我努力思考哪些事情会

最有可能影响人类的未来，至少是在我能够预见的范围内，而那 3 件事似乎是互联网、可持续能源，呃，这既要求以可持续的方式生产能源，也要求以可持续的方式消耗能源，嗯，然后第 3 件事是在永久基础上把生命扩展到地球之外，从而成为一个真正的太空带来文明的多重态物种。而且我认为，当人们以某种方式思考人类未来的历史时，如果，如果我们不走上那些道路，那么情况真的会非常不同。如果，如果没有互联网；如果我们，呃，如果无法销售可持续能源，显然就会发生经济崩溃；嗯，如果我们无法一个太空弗林文明，那么最终会有某种、某种事情

在地球上发生，并且会，会消灭我们所知的文明。所以，呃，我认为那，那 3 件事需要得到处理。嗯，并不是说我上大学时真的预料到自己会处理它们，呃，或者已经……但我想，事情并不是我认为自己会有，有机会去做这些。呃，但是，但是这基本上就是它们之间的联系，没有，没有任何其他联系。嗯，关于，你知道，显然互联网已经出现了，而且它，它非常了不起，它改变了我们的生活。我认为它实际上使人类比以往任何时候都更像一个超级有机体。嗯，它就像，它赋予了人类一个神经系统，所以就像身体里的每一个细胞基本上都能知道其余细胞在做什么

而从前，那会通过某种过程发生，几乎更像是渗透作用，而不是，嗯，你知道，你的，你的，你的大脑知道你的脚趾知道什么，对吧？嗯，你可以身处巴西丛林的中央，如果你有卫星电话连接，你就连接到了人类的全部知识，这相当了不起。所以，嗯，但是，但是我认为，就地球而言，我认为人类面对的最大问题是可持续能源问题。如果我们不能在本世纪解决那个问题，嗯，不考虑任何环境担忧，我们都将面临经济崩溃。嗯，这是显而易见的，确实是同义反复。呃，你知道，它要么是可持续的……你把自己对能源和电池的担忧带进了 Tesla，而这把我们带到，你知道

真正的 82 部门。嗯，你有一个强大的 AR，呃，呃，你是能源部一笔大额拨款的接收者之一，或者不是拨款，是贷款。是的，如果，如果，如果，如果我们想更改那些条款，这当然会是个好机会。你知道，我们刚才在后台休息室，我，我看得出一笔交易刚刚谈成。这是带利息的，我得说，带利息。好的，在华盛顿特区，一切都是拨款。不错的尝试，是的。但是在可持续能源方面，我想，你所获得的这笔带利息的贷款，实际上是围绕一种合作关系建立的，并着眼于，你知道，下一代，呃，电池以及创造这种东西的机会。所以我感兴趣的是，你如何看待自己的产品在其中的位置。而斯蒂芬，我很想听听你的想法，以及为什么这项

投资，好吧，不是投资，呃，是贷款，嗯，是合理的。嗯，当然。好吧，首先，我认为值得先，嗯，稍微谈谈我们获得这笔，这笔贷款所依据的项目。嗯，它叫作先进技术车辆制造项目。呃，它实际上是由布什总统签署成为法律的。嗯，尽管人们，人们认为它是奥巴马签署的。不，它，它实际上是由布什总统签署的。嗯，随后，我认为对收到的，呃，那些，那些，那些申请进行了相当、相当仔细的，呃，审议。嗯，而那笔贷款实际上有一项要求，就是你必须是一家能够存续的公司。嗯，因此，呃，呃，通用汽车和克莱斯勒当时没有资格，因为它们正在经历

破产程序。嗯，不幸的是，那……所以从拨款方或者……的角度看，它们现在恢复存续能力了吗？是的，我想它们差不多恢复存续能力了。嗯，那显然需要进行大幅重组。但是，因为，呃，对通用汽车和克莱斯勒的救助，与，嗯，先进技术车辆制造项目的公告大致同时发生，人们把这两者混为一谈，以为它们是同一回事。它们是非常不同的事情。嗯，而且事实上，为了让我们，呃，成为……这个项目也是以里程碑为基础的。所以，嗯，为了让我们获得部分贷款，我们必须取得进展，嗯，按照具体的里程碑取得进展。呃，而我认为，那是一种非常合理的安排

项目的方式。嗯，而那，呃，那就是为什么，例如，该项目的一名参与者……当那名参与者无法完成里程碑时，迪斯波斯就停止了。所以我，我认为那是一种非常合理的方式。我认为它，我认为它，它确实安排得非常好。嗯，呃，你们，你们达到里程碑了吗？我们，我们已经达到了所有里程碑，是的。斯滕，嗯，你对这个项目感觉如何？其他汽车公司会，呃，申请并尝试推动这件事吗？Tesla 是现在唯一的，那个，那个，那个贷款接收者吗，还是……不。好的，首先，首先它们不是。呃，我们已经……正如埃隆所说，通用汽车，通用汽车和，呃，克莱斯勒没有资格。福特有资格，福特申请了贷款，呃，是我们最大的一笔贷款。呃，我们认为那，呃，那笔贷款将

得到偿还，我们对此完全有信心。日产在田纳西州生产汽车，包括日产 Leaf，呃，而他们希望获得一笔贷款，以便开始，呃，你知道，在田纳西州生产像 leave 那样的汽车。呃，我们认为那笔贷款会得到偿还。那是向汽车公司提供的 2 笔最大贷款。呃，还有其他贷款可能存在风险，但是，但是我会说，你知道，任何新的汽车公司，甚至……但在那些日子里，甚至，甚至，呃，福特，呃，Nan 时期也不被认为有风险，但甚至福特也被认为有风险。但是，嗯，但它所做的是，仅凭福特那 1 笔贷款就保住了超过 35,000 个工作岗位，而且，而且使他们能够改造设备，采用，呃，更高阶段的机器人自动化，这样他们就能在线上编程，而不是通过编程只生产 1 种车型，生产线可以重新编程

呃，非常、非常快，呃，你知道，只需几个月、几周，这样他们就可以生产其他东西。因此，这赋予了他们在美国的制造能力，呃，可以把工作岗位留在美国。所以，所以有……那么现在说到 Tesla，呃，你知道，这是一家非常有创新精神的公司。任何新公司，呃，都会承担一些风险，但另一方面，呃，它的创新方式、它推动这件事的方式，是一种与老式电动车截然不同的方法。他们是一家垂直整合程度高得惊人的公司，嗯，意思是他们不仅设计整个平台、驱动系统、动力传动系统、电子设备，甚至还设计用于零部件验收的测试设备，而且，而且他们与供应商合作。我不想让自己听起来像是在为 Tesla 做广告，但是，但是我只是说

它已经走了……但这是，但这是创新，是最……这是美国创新最出色的体现，因为它，它是一种完全不同的方法，是一种激进的方法，而且如果成功，它，它将成为未来的浪潮。你知道，我如此喜欢 arpa e 的原因之一，而且我见过许多参加这场、这场、这场会议的人，呃，包括去年和今年，是因为，呃，外面有真正的创新者和商界人士在苦苦努力，试图以某种方式，你知道，解开他们正在处理的任何谜题。他们不只是在美国背景下处理它，也是在一个，一个全球化世界的现实中处理它。而且你知道，当你思考各种……你来自南非，你是，你是，呃，你是

无论是 SpaceX，还是你在处理，你知道，技术，你现在都在全球格局下处理。你强调美国的工作岗位、美国的技术，我认为这也很重要，因为人们有一种感觉：这里的责任意识是我们需要重新开始思考的东西，而我们可能已经偏离了那条轨道。你有没有这种感觉？让我以商人的身份问你，你是否感觉美国……你提到是布什政府签署了它，但你是否认为我们正开始转变？我记得一份 McKenzie 报告说，你知道，美国从每一个离岸工作岗位中，呃，获得了巨大收益。呃，我记得，呃，在更早的总统政府中，总统顾问说，我们在美国制造什么并不重要，一片薯片和一个半导体

芯片是，是一样的。呃，而你是否感觉到那里……你知道，有些人称之为产业政策，但我们就称它为，你知道，一种，一种，一种重新形成的意识：制造业以及在美国经济中创造东西回来了，而那需要明智的政策。我很想听听你对此的想法，斯蒂芬。你很快就要离职了，但你一直在做这件事。是的。嗯，要让人们相信政府确实能够产生积极影响，这是一块难啃的硬骨头。好吧，这是明智的政策，但让我……你知道，这是个很棒的问题。事情是这样的：有些人说，工作就是工作就是工作。嗯，而且，呃，服务业工作和制造业工作是一样的。嗯，我强烈不同意。如果你看看美国是如何嵌入的，以及我们是如何走到

今天这一步，呃，这既是回顾过去，也是展望未来。你在美国发明、在美国制造、在这里生产的制造业工作岗位，呃，会带来所有其他与之相关的第二级服务业工作岗位，所以它具有巨大的杠杆效应。另一个更重要的认识是，如果你看看……那边有，嗯，呃，诺贝尔奖得主、经济学家迈克尔·斯彭斯，他是我的朋友，呃，碰巧来自斯坦福。呃，他和一位同事在大约 6 个月、8 个月前发表了一篇，呃，论文，研究了工作岗位以及美国在一个 20e 时期内创造的所有新工作岗位。他们把它划分为服务业工作岗位，以及一级、二级、三级制造业，所有这些东西。但是他真正区分的是所谓的

你所做的可贸易的事情与不可贸易的事情。呃，让我举个例子。如果你是一名农民，种植小麦或玉米，那就是可贸易的，你可以把它运往国外。呃，汽车是可贸易的，你知道，那类东西是可贸易的。什么是不可贸易的？美国能源部长是不可贸易的，这是美国能源部门。呃，餐馆的工作岗位是不可贸易的，对吧，它服务于那个，呃，大多数医院工作岗位也是不可贸易的。好的，美国的就业增长惊人地增长了很多，在美国 1980 到 90，呃，到 2000 年的 20 年期间，那是非常健康的时期，但只发生在不可贸易部门。想想看，所有工作岗位都在不可贸易部门。可贸易部门的就业增长是持平的，对吧？所以现在想一想，在

美国必须进行全球竞争的领域，我们没有增长。现在，如果你把这一点推到它的自然极限，你就会陷入非常糟糕的境地，因为你仍然需要把东西进口到美国，但我们却没有出口东西，你会陷入非常糟糕的步伐。如果我卖给你披萨，你卖给我蓝色牛仔裤，那没问题，但最终我们会需要来自美国以外的其他东西。因此，在这个更大的背景下，呃，那种认为你可以放弃制造业这个扬·斯泰茨财富根基的观念，我认为存在严重缺陷。呃，它是其中一部分，你知道，是的，我们今天大多数工作岗位都是服务业工作岗位，但制造业是根本基础，因为那些东西是可贸易的。不仅如此，就美国公众广泛多样的能力和才华而言，你希望

你知道，并非每个人都会成为股票经纪人之类的。所以，嗯，因此那是另一件事，是的，需要良好、合理的政策，真正让各种力量重新关注从长远来看什么对我们的公民有好处。实际上，如果可以的话，我想就 Tesla 发表一点评论。嗯，呃，我们的客户包括梅赛德斯，呃，以及丰田，呃，因此我们向他们供应电动动力传动系统，嗯，其中大部分用于出口。嗯，而且，呃，Tesla roads 已经出口到 31 个不同国家。呃，从长远来看，我们预计，我们制造的汽车中，大概约有 60% 到 65% 会出口到欧洲和亚洲，然后也会出口到世界其他地区。所以我确实认为，那个……只是……你观点中的王，那个并不是……如果，如果，如果

如果其他国家能够向我们出口它们的汽车，为什么我们不能制造出足够好、可以出口给它们的汽车？嗯，是的。我可以补充一点吗？我第一次看到的情况，实际上是由，呃，环保署和交通部门制定的更高里程标准所推动的。突然之间，在美国制造的汽车现在可以出口了，因为它们，它们体型较小、它们负有责任、燃油效率更高。所以，所以，你原本可能认为是一项，呃，所谓的监管，在告诉我们该如何经营，实际上却正在以一种非常微妙的方式推动，呃，这件事。因为如果，你知道，如果，你知道，除少数例外，如果，如果你只制造每加仑行驶15、20密尔的汽车，那就不具备面向大众市场的出口能力。如果你制造每加仑行驶35、40、45密尔的汽车

那就是，呃，所以这是你看到开始发生的另一件事。汽车制造……开始说，你知道吗，我们可以在奥尼特各州制造并出口，而不是，你知道，在另一个国家制造。好吧，我，我记得，我在 1990 年代为宾格曼参议员工作。我记得当时在这个领域，呃，我们那里有桑国家实验室，嗯，而且他们与 Intel、通用汽车等非常大的公司签订了合作研究与开发协议。负责 GM CR，呃，的人非常明确、公开地表示，他们签订这项协议，是为了尽可能从协议中拿走所有军民两用的，或者，你知道，非国家安全技术，并将其应用于他们在中国的设施。而且他们说，如果我们

没有那样做，我们30年后就不会在那里，所以，作为一项，你知道，由纳税人支持的国家安全研究，这给我提出了一些有趣的伦理问题，但很难把这些方程式弄对，因为技术会流动，博士会流动，而且而且而且你拥有它，但在我们只剩几分钟的时候，我想问问你们，你们两位都是，嗯，创新世界里的巨人，埃隆，你做过的不只是，我是说，这很讽刺，因为你最近在《纽约时报》遭遇了一些棘手的媒体报道，呃，我只是，呃，想起这完全是你的错，不是因为车不好，呃，而是因为埃隆的，嗯，第一次经商尝试是一家叫 Zip 2 的公司，呃，《纽约时报》是它的投资者，而你实际上帮助《纽约时报》上线了，呃

所以不管怎样，那是多年前了，我意我想这就叫被称为自己爆破筒上的主人，是的，所以，嗯，但从那家公司以及 PayPal，当然还有 Tesla、Solar City，嗯，我采访过你许多帮助把它建立起来的朋友和同事，而斯蒂芬，就你在，嗯，在伯克利等地的研究工作而言，你知道，先别管你本人是一位有权势的能源部长，仅从创新、跳出框框思考以及做别人从未做过的事情来说，我们现场有3,000人，呃，他们正努力寻找那种，那些让创新发挥作用的正确要素是什么，不只是创新，还要颠覆现有企业、获得融资和资本，并以正确的

方式合作，我很想请你们谈谈这群人在为自己的抱负奋斗时应该听到的2或3条重要经验。好的，是的，嗯，好吧，呃，我想，呃，所以你是在寻找供人们执行想法的建议，想做你做过的事，但也许是在不同领域。我想，我不确定他们是否真的知道他们会想要什么，实际上，嗯，是的，事情从来没有看起来那么好，嗯，我认为这些日子情况好些了，但但很多年来，那是，那是非常痛苦的，嗯，我们早在2008年几乎失去了一切，嗯，所以在 Tesla，是的，实际上3家公司在2008年都差点倒闭，嗯，因为，呃，那个 SpaceX，而你现在仍然全职管理其中2家公司，对吧，担任 CEO，对吧，情况怎么样

你吗？我不推荐这样。是的，是的，嗯，这，呃，这这并不是，我这样做是因为我认为我必须做，而不是因为我想做。好的，所以那，那或许是一个重要的考虑因素，所以去做你必须做的事。我还记得我们在圣迭戈的会面很有意思，你，呃，表达过，呃，唯一限制你和你的抱负的是物理定律。我觉得那是一句非常棒的话。那，那是，好吧，我不是说在物理定律的限制内我什么都能做，但我是说，如果如果物理学说你做不到，那你大概就做不到，嗯，是的，要不然你就应该获得一个，你应该获得一个非常重大的诺贝尔奖，二者必居其一。是的，嗯，是的，你知道，遵守热力学定律以及能量、动量守恒通常很重要，还有

诸如此类的东西。我明白了。斯蒂芬，嗯，是的，我同意，我想直接谈这个。是的，好的，我们，我们，我们对物理学的损失意见一致，但对在场创新者有什么想法，嗯，我想，当我回顾自己所做的事情，你知道，当然还有扬所做的事情，不管有多少人做过，你环顾四周，寻找那些你开始看到某种突破性新思维的一线曙光的领域，呃，或者这个行业的某项技术一直被搁置、没有应用到那个行业，和或者由于一个新兴市场，那里就是存在一种需求，呃，而这些事情实际上能够成为创新成功的真正驱动力，呃，当你看到突破的一线曙光时，我是说，埃隆曾告诉我，他读研究生时研究的是能源

储存和超级电容之类的东西，呃，我想我们许多人在8、10年前就看到，在那之前，电池技术一直缓慢爬行、缓慢爬行、缓慢爬行，然后突然间你发现，等等，开始看到某种东西将会，呃，转向一条不同的斜率。如果你认为它可能转向一条不同的斜率，就去做那些事情来开发那项技术，并让帮助你开发那项技术的人围绕在你身边，这样你就能成为领军者。好的，但但但你身后有某种东西正在形成一股你将乘上的浪潮，所以这非常重要，呃，而且，所以，在我研究生涯里做过的事情中，当我还是研究生时，激光在60年代初就已经得到演示，可调谐激光器被发明了

到1970年，到1972年，尽管我的论文导师此前并不从事激光研究，也不了解激光，但我告诉他们，你知道吗，我们必须进入这项技术。不过，你进入它不是靠购买一台激光器，而是靠制造下一个最好的东西，让你保持领先，然后你就能制作其他人做不了的标志。是的，我可以提出2 2项建议，实际上确实略微 K 物理学，也就是说，我认为很多时候，如果你想做真正创新的事情，就必须采用某种第一性原理分析，而不是，不要，不要通过类比来推理。类比是在参照过去。嗯，所以第一性原理意味着你，你，你审视某一特定领域中最根本的真理，呃，嗯，以及那些确实

几乎无可争议地正确的事情，嗯，然后你从那里向上推理，得出结论。嗯，而且如果你，如果你看到那个结论与人们普遍相信的东西相冲突，那么你就有了机会。嗯，现在你不能在所有事情上都这样做，因为这需要太多脑力，所以你生活中的大部分时候必须通过类比来推理。但如果你真的想因维特，就必须从第一性原理进行推理，以识别问题。嗯，然后你也应该寻求负面的，获得反馈。这，这听起来像一件奇怪的事，并且从，从，从你的朋友和有知识的人那里看看。人们不会给你负面反馈。残忍是为了仁慈。不，不是，你只是想，你需要明白你在哪里

错了。这没有，这没有任何东西，而且，而且把感受放到一边。很多时候，人们能看着你正在做的事，他们知道那是错的，但你有，但，但他们不想伤害你的感情，所以他们才不告诉你。嗯，所以，是的，是的，斯蒂芬。是的，我们，我们正好到结尾了，请讲。嗯，我同意再过几天。嗯，会比那更久，但，但是，呃，我想，呃，我同意埃隆所说的一切。呃，当你看新技术时，你看，可能会有，你知道的，St 所谓的疯狂主张。嗯，但你，所谓的理论局限是什么，但不是理论上的，真主，海森堡关于 Ser 原理，你知道，有一种更低层的理论超越了这个。它只是，你知道，它不会成功。然后你，技术在哪里，然后

你说，在那和那之间有多少空间，是你现实中能在5年内到达的，好吧。而且，而且这实际上有助于界定事物，并让思维聚焦于你应该思考什么、不应该思考什么。所以有很多像这样的事情，我认为成功的创新者一直都在做。建设性的反馈、诚实的反馈，正是我们在 RP 中建立的东西，现在正被感染到能源部的其他部门。呃，你知道，如果你听到一个你并不真正认同的想法，与其礼貌地坐在那里并保持礼貌，你会说，不，你知道，我认为那不对，你知道，这就是原因，你知道，你错了。然后，然后你坐到桌边谈论它，而那就是

你弄清楚自己是对还是错的地方，然后你会对正在发生的事情有更深入的理解。那就是我们希望的那种文化，它在 RP 中开始，开始了，当然必须在 RP 中继续，但也要感染能源部的其他部门。是的，女士们、先生们，我们已经来到，哦，最后，最后一句话。我可以宣布一件或许会很有意思的事。嗯，所以，呃，大家把 Twitter 拿出来。是的，没错。嗯，所以我，我，我真的认为，给 Tesla 的 Dee 贷款应该被视为一次相当重大的成功。我的意思是，我们，我们，我们，我们正在出口汽车。呃，我们，我们正在向世界上最受尊敬的2个品牌梅赛德斯和，而且，而且丰田销售动力总成。呃，我们赢得了电动汽车，去年赢得了年度汽车奖。我

我的意思是，这、这确实是很不错的东西。我的意思是，所以，如果人们要，嗯，你知道，因 floody cylindra 而攻击能源部，看在上帝的份上，说真的，嗯，呃，你知道，如果、那么、那么当取得成功时，能源部也应该得到一些赞扬。嗯，我觉得你刚刚帮能源部的股票上涨了。是的，而且、而且、而且、而且，所以实际上我想公开作出一项承诺，而且我们会把它正式写下来：Tesla 将把贷款的偿还时间缩短一半。所以我们原本还有未来 10 年来还贷款，现在是一半或更短。太好了。好吧，我们，呃，我们、我们已经，呃，超时 2 分 47 秒了，但我认为，当你与美国最杰出的 2 位创新者坐在一起时，他们可以借给我们那、那一点额外时间。我想，呃，感谢你们两位分享你们关于如何让

这件事奏效的见解。呃，我知道我刚才就政府和私营部门那件事稍微调侃了你一下，但我们在这里所做的，以及我认为 ARPA 正在做的事情，是如此重要，本质上是在创建一个平台，在理想层面上提高我们作为一个国家需要达到的目标，把，呃，参与者带入其中，让他们能够获得建设性的反馈，无论负面还是正面的，呃，而且他们有真实世界的范例，可以看看你们一遍又一遍又一遍做成了什么。如果我们还有 1 或 2 个小时，你知道，这很有意思，以我的职位，我有机会采访很多天才，而当你身处天才身边时，它会给你一个机会，因为人们会按照他们看待世界的方式组织事物。这些人现在正为我们稍微放慢一点。当你正在进行一场

深夜与他们一起喝啤酒时，你多少能看出他们如何看待未来，以及他们如何行事，而这对我们所有人、对房间里的人来说，确实极其，嗯，有价值。你们花时间，呃，与我们分享，并给我们一些切入点，让我们了解你们如何看待创新以及它如何运作。所以非常感谢。[掌声] [音乐]

now we have the Secretary of Energy Steven Chu and innovator Galore CEO and product architect at Tesla CEO of SpaceX and creator of PayPal Alon musk alen thank you for joining us joining us we'll put alen here and Stephen there it'll be great so we're going to have uh again have some fun have a bit of a an informal chat with with two giants um and I thought I would started off a little bit fun maybe a little bit uh risque that I understand uh uh Stephen that you have a Nobel Prize on your wall uh and that some people have said hey when you're dealing with Congress and talking about sequesters maybe you should take it on off the wall and when you're having a meeting with that cator and say hey here's what I've got what do you have bad idea bad idea hasn't

worked for you um I also heard at the one of the inaugural dinners Will I Am came up to you and said you know Stephen you're really really cool but one way to get uh even cooler is to change your name to MC energy taking it on is that true uh it's true and you did go around that night and and and thought well we have I thought we'd start aen it's great to have you with us um out from California I thought we'd start the conversation uh in an interesting way because Stephen you're known for um investing and thinking about the transition from non- fossil fuel energy to renewable energy trying to think about how you systematically do that bring science and innovators uh and government resources to together to do it you're going to be leaving uh fairly shortly

I assume you've announced that you're going to be leaving your post um Alon musk is here he's quite an Innovative guy uh he's gotten a lot of awards and I'm just sort of interested in starting off conversation by asking you should you President Obama call you and say would you like his job uh how would you do it differently wow um well I I I think Steve's done a pretty awesome job actually I think I've had of a hard time doing a better job so um and I think being Secretary of anything is is a really tough tough role to hold uh and and one where you you tend to get I think a lot more criticism than praise um no matter what job you do so um well when you speak drill down a little it's not a role to to which I would Aspire you're a young man you you've revolutionized

payments you've done a lot of revolution in cars and batteries you're now revolutionizing our access to space and you're doing this in in in part on on the the backs of scientists and other innovators and some government Investments but you're outpacing what government has been able to do and so my my question was not a factious one it was if you were able to not have the the the environment if you were able to basically jump ahead and you know Stephen is is also a brilliant innovator a Nobel La of course in physics but what makes makes you who you are how do you how are you able to do these things which government has found itself less able to accomplish as quickly well I I mean I think one way to think of government is is to think of it as essentially

a large corporation or the largest corporation um and generally uh large corporations have a harder time with radical Innovation than than small smaller companies there are some exceptions to that rule like apple but but it's generally true that the larger a company is the the harder it is to to to execute Innovation um now there there are ways to to get around that by in in the private sector by acquiring smaller companies that that that that do do the radical Innovation or or by having someone uh like say Steve Jobs who who is just relentlessly hardcore about uh pushing um radical Innovation um but uh but I think it is just generally true that the large of the corporation or Lodge The Entity the the harder it is to to uh uh engage radical Innovation

well Stephen it seems to me sitting here at an arpa conference that arpa is a very Innovative notion of how do you move from the very large maybe I I would argue risk avoiding of uh environment of government and here you've got rpe which really is about encouraging you know maybe not risk but investment Innovation and we love you to reflect for a moment on on how you think this experiment is going and what more needs to be done uh particularly in the in the energy area of of Next Generation energy well it um you know going to the uh Corporation analogy um I've got a CEO uh the president uh I got uh a very diverse board of directors 535 of them it's a big board in Congress but but within that you there's many things you can do within the agency um certainly

getting RP going that was of course voted on by Congress proposed by the president you know lots of bipartisan support but once you have the funding to say let's get started within the agency you can then say how can it be different and so we went in there thinking this could be a new example of how we want to get a lot of Department of energy programs and it's uh yes you're going to have to take risks that was designed into the program it was written into uh the American comp act that philosophy it was written into Rising Above The Gather storm that um it's it's research its development and it's very we didn't we don't expect all those things to work but they're short hits this is not a long-term thing this is a short hit get in there see if it's going

to work it's going to be a home run we wanted home runs now after 3 years have there been home runs well maybe not but there's a people rounding second and third base so it's looking good uh and so and then the culture in RP is something else that is very different you had a bunch of program managers who sit around and instead of politely presenting their program and advocating for their program they would listen to what everyone else said and they would start to say well I'm not so sure that I believe that what about this what about that it was described as constructive confrontation that was exactly the thing we got at about Laboratories uh that you know you're not going to completly wait your turn you're going to old discuss is the combin intellect

of the group would develop those ideas and that is very different and of course then there's a spirit that my gosh this is going to be something special and so far it has been very special so much grew out of bell abs and and of course you were at Bell Labs is arpa essentially taking there is no Bell Labs today so is and I'm I'm interested in whether that is a very harmful thing for the US economy is that what RP is now replicating and what you think is important to sort of institutionalize that sort of constructive confrontation how do you look at the future of that kind of big investment in basic research that that would drive the country uh forward well to be fair they're very very different Bell lab's research and development ultimately was to serve

the company and they had a financial bottom line RP is we are funders of other innovators and but the baps bear I was talking about uh can be exactly the same the the quality of the people people we got into the program were truly outstanding and so that part of the Bell Spirit was there but but you know we're not we're not there in business to to to do something we're there to uh sponsor very sponsor Innovation that the private sector will pick up and run with you know Alon to think a little bit about the agenda for today which is essentially about Innovation you shared a while back actually in a forum um that was organized by the Atlantic this was done in San Diego um at a forum we call the Atlantic meets Pacific and you spoke there and said you know

you had three real spheres that drove your interest one was the internet uh the other was sustainable energy and the other was making life multiplanetary right um would you like to share a little bit about the making life multiplanetary bit uh that might be slightly off topic uh but but I guess I can talk about a little bit um not NE but about getting there you know here's about the Innovation with rockets with space with batteries and cars which I assume are are are are somehow in your mind integrated as component pieces of changing the way we live creating sustainability and thinking about moving you know moving into other spheres well the thing that really I mean when when I was in in University I try to think about what were the things that would

most likely affect the future of humanity in at least as far as I could see and the three things seem to be the internet sustainable energy uh which requires both producing it in a sustainable Manner and and consuming it in a sustainable manner um and and then the third being extending life beyond Earth on a permanent basis so become a true space bring civilization of multiplet species and I thought as one sort of thinks about the the future history of humanity those if if we don't take those paths then it would be really very different if if there was no internet if there was uh if we were unable to sell sustainable energy obviously there would be economic collapse um if we were unable to a space Fring civilization then eventually some something would

happen on Earth that would would eliminate civilization as we know it so uh I thought those those three things needed to be addressed um and not that I expected actually in college that I would address them U or have but I think it's not as though I thought this would I'd have have an opportunity to do it uh but but that that's essentially what connects them there's not there's not any other connection um with respect to you know obviously the internet has happened and it's it's amazing it's transformed our life and I think it's actually made Humanity much more of a superorganism than we ever were before um and it's like it's given Humanity a nervous system so it's like every cell in the body can knows what the rest of the cells are doing essentially

whereas previously that would occur bya some sort of process almost like more like osmosis as opposed to um you know your your your brain knowing what your toe knows right um when you can be in the middle of a of a the Brazilian jungle if you have a satellite phone connection you connected to all of Humanity's knowledge which is pretty amazing so um but but I think as far as Earth is concerned I think the biggest problem that Humanity faces is one of sustainable energy if we don't solve that problem this Century um independent of any environmental concerns we will face economic collapse um this is obvious it's tological really uh you know it's either sustainable you brought into Tesla that your concern about energy batteries and it brings us you know

really to sector 82 um you have a robust AR uh uh you're one of the recipients of a large Grant from the Department of energy or Grant no not a grant loan yes if if if if if we'd like to change those terms of course this would be a good opportunity you know we're back in the green room and I I could tell a deal had just been done it's it's with interest I should say with interest okay in DC everything's a grant good good try yeah but in sustainable energy I assume that that the the the loan that you have with interest is really built around a partnership and looking at you know next Generation uh batteries and and opportunity creating this and so I'm interested in how you see your own product in this and Stephen i' love to draw your thought and why this

investment well not investment uh loan uh makes sense um sure well first of all I think it's it's worth just um talking a bit about the um the program under which we received the the loan um it's it's called the advanced technology vehicle manufacturing program uh it was actually signed into law by President Bush um although people people think it was signed by Obama no it was it was actually signed by President Bush um the and and and then there was I think quite a a careful uh consideration of uh the the applications that that that came in um and and one of the requirements actually of that loan was that you had to be a viable company um and as a result uh uh General Motors and Chrysler were ineligible at the time because of they were going through

bankruptcy proceedings um unfortunately that so are they back the viability now in terms of the grant makers or the yeah I think they're they're more or less back to being viable um that required obviously dramatic restructure ing but because the uh the bailout of GM and Chrysler occurred roughly the same time as the announcements for the um advanced technology vehicle man manufacturing program were announced people conflated those two and thought they were the same thing they were very different things um and in fact in order for us to uh be the program is Milestone based as well so um in order for us to receive portions of the loan we must make progress um along along with concrete Milestones uh and that's I think that's a very sensible way to structure

a program um and that's uh that's why for example one of the participants in the program that the the dispos stopped when that that participant was unable to complete the Milestones so I I think that's a very sensible way I think it's I think it's it's really structured very well um uh are you are you hitting your milestones we we've hit all of our Milestones yeah Sten um how do you feel about this program are are the other car companies uh going to apply and try and move this forward is this something that Tesla's the the the single um loan recipient of right now or you no okay first first they're not uh We've um as Elon said GM GM and uh chestler were not eligible Ford was Ford applied for loan uh our largest loan uh we think that uh that loan will

be paid we have confidence full confidence for it Nissan makes cars in Tennessee including Nissan Leaf uh and they wanted a loan to start uh you know making cars in Tennessee like the leave uh we think that loan is going to be repaid those are the two biggest loans to car companies uh there are others which may be at risk but but I would say in know any new car company even but in those days even even uh Ford uh Nan time was not considered risk but even Ford was considered risky but um but what it did is it preserved over 35,000 jobs just for that one loan Ford and and allowed them to retool to go to uh higher stage robotic automation so that they can program on the line instead of programming to generate just one type of car the line could be reprogrammed

U very very quickly uh you know in months weeks so that they can produce something else so it gave them a manufacturing capability in the US uh that would keep the jobs in the US so so there were so now with Tesla uh you know this is a very Innovative campan any new company uh bear some risk but on the other hand uh its way of innovation the way it's pushing this it's a totally different approach to an old electric vehicle they are an incredibly vertically integrated company um meaning that they not only designed the entire platform the drive the motor train the electronics they even designed a test equipment for the acceptance of the of the parts and and they work with the suppliers and I don't want to sound like an ad for Tesla but but I'm just saying

that it's gone but this is but this is the Innovative the most it's the best of American innovation in the sense that it's it's a totally different approach it's a radical approach and if successful it's it's going to be the wave of the future you know one of the reasons why I like arpa e so much and I've met many of the people who attend this this this meeting uh from last year and this year is that uh there are real innovators and business people out there struggling trying to kind of you know fix whatever puzzle they're dealing with they're not only dealing with it within the US context they're dealing it with it with the realities of a of a globalized world and you know when you think about the kinds of you're from South Africa you're you're uh you're

whether it's SpaceX or you're dealing with you know technology you're now dealing with a global format you emphasizing us jobs us technology which I think is also important because there's a sense that stewardship here is something we need to get back to thinking about and we may have lost that track do you get a sense and let me ask you as a businessman do you get a sense that the United States you cited the Bush Administration for signing but you think we're beginning to shift I remember a McKenzie report saying you know that America benefited uh tremendously from every offshore job uh I remember uh in earlier presidential administrations advisor to the president said it didn't matter what we made in the United States a a potato chip and a semiconductor

chip are the are the same uh and and do you get a sense that there you know some people call it industrial policy but let's just call it you know A A A Renewed sense that manufacturing and that creating things in the US economy is back and that takes smart policy and I'd love to get your thoughts on this Stephen just you're leaving your job soon but you've been at this yeah um and it's a hard nut to get people to believe that the government can really make a positive impact well it is smart policy but let me you know it's a great question here's here's the thing there are some who say it a job is a job is a job um and uh service jobs are the same as manufacturing jobs um I strongly disagree if you look at how the United States is embedded and how we got

to where we are uh and this is looking back but also looking forward the the jobs in manufacturing that you invent in America you manufacture in America you produce here uh have all the other secondary service jobs associated with so it's greatly leveraged the other more important thing to realize is if you looked over there was um uh Michael Spence the Nobel prize winning Economist a friend of mine U happens to be from Stanford uh he and a colleague of his published uh a paper about 6 Months 8 months ago that looked at jobs and all the new jobs were created in the United States over 20e period and they divided it into service jobs into manufacturing of tier one tier two tier three all these things and but he really divided between what would be called

things that you do that are tradable and things that are not tradable uh let me give you an example if you're a farmer and you grow wheat or corn that's tradable you can ship it abroad uh cars are tradable you know things of that nature are tradable what's not tradable the US Secretary of energy is not tradable it's the US sector of energy uh restaurant jobs are not tradable right it's serving that uh most hospital jobs are not tradable okay the job growth in the United States remarkably grew a lot very healthy time in the period of the United States 1980 to 90 uh to 2000 20 years only in the non-tradable sector think about that all the jobs were in the non-tradable sector the job growth in the tradable sector was flat right so now think about this in

areas where the United States has to compete globally we didn't grow now what you take that to its natural limit you're in a very bad place because you still need to import things into the us but we're not exporting things you get to a very bad Pace if I sell you pizza and you sell me Blue Jeans that's okay but eventually we're going to need something else from outside the US and so on this larger context uh this notion that you can give up manufacturing as a root Foundation of yan State's wealth is I think deeply flawed uh it is part of you know yes most of our jobs are today service jobs but manufacturing is a root Foundation because those are tradable things and not only that in terms of the wide diversity and talents in the American public you want

you know not everyone's going to be a stock broker or something like that and so um so that's another thing where yes good sensible policy to actually get forces back to look at in the long term what will be good for our citizens actually if I may comment on that with respect to Tesla um uh we have as customers Mercedes uh and Toyota uh so we Supply electric power trins to them um much of that being exported um and uh we have Tesla roads is have been exported now to 31 different countries uh longterm we expect probably uh some something in the order of 60 to 65% of the cars that we manufacture will be exported to Europe and Asia and and then other parts of the world as well so I do think that that to to just king of your point that that isn't if if if

the if other countries can export their cars to us why can't we make cars that are good enough to export to them MH yes can I add to that and what I'm seeing for the first time it's actually stimulated by the higher mileage standards uh that EPA and transportation put out all of a sudden cars being manufactured in the United States are now exportable because they're they're small they liable more fuel efficient and so so what you think would be uh a quote regulation telling us how to do our business is actually stimulating uh this thing in a very subtle way where if you know if you know except from a few exceptions if if you're only making cars to get 15 20 mil to a gallon that's not mass Market exportable if you're making cars to get 35 40 45 mil a gallon

that is uh and so that's another thing that's you see beginning to happen the the car manufactur are beginning to say you know what we can build the onit states and Export rather than you know build in another country well I I remember I I worked for Senator bingaman in the 1990s I remember at that time in this Arena U we had San National Laboratories um there and they had Cooperative research and development agreements with very large firms like Intel General Motors and others and the guys that were running the GM CR uh were very explicit and overt that they had the agreement to try and take all the Dual use or you know non-national security technology they could get out of the agreement and to apply it to their facilities in China and they said if we

didn't do that we won't be there in 30 years so this was raised interesting ethical questions for me as a you know taxpayer supported National Security research but it's hard to get these equations right because technology flows phds flow and and and you have it but while we have just a few minutes left I'd like to ask you you're both such um Giants in in the world of innovation and Alon you you've not just done I mean it's ironic because you've had some tough media recently in the New York Times uh I was just uh reminded that uh this was entirely your fault not because of bad car uh but alon's um first foray into business was a company called zip 2 uh which the New York Times was an investor in and you actually helped take the New York Times online uh

so any that was years ago I realiz I think that's called being called host on your own petard yeah so um but from that and and PayPal and Tesla of course Solar City um where I've interviewed a number of U your friends and colleagues that have helped put that together and and Stephen with you in your um in in your research work at Berkeley and others you know forget yourself as a powerful Secretary of Energy but just in terms of of innovating thinking out of the box and doing things that no other people have done before we have 3,000 people in the room uh who are struggling to find that kind of those what are the right ingredients to make Innovation work not just Innovation but then disrupting incumbents getting finance and capital partnering in the right

ways and I I'd love to just get two or three important lessons from you that this crowd should hear as they struggle with their own aspirations okay yeah um well uh I I think uh so you're looking for S suggestions that people for executing on on IDE wants to do what you've done but maybe in different areas I think I'm not sure they really knew what the that they would want that actually um yeah it's Never As Good As It Seems um I think things are better these days but but for many years there it was it was very painful um and we almost lost everything back in 2008 um so at Tesla yeah actually all three companies almost died in 2008 um because uh that SpaceX and you're still running two of the companies full-time right as CEO right how's that going for

you I don't recommend it yeah yeah um it's uh it's it's not I I'm doing this because I think I have to not because I want to okay so that's that's maybe an important consideration so doing what you have to do I also remember in our San Diego meeting was fascinating you uh conveyed that uh uh the only limits on you and your aspirations were physical I thought it was a really great line that's that's well that's I'm not saying that I can do anything within the limits of physics but I'm saying if if physics says you can't do it then you probably can't um yeah or you should get a you should get a really big Nobel Prize one of the two yeah um yeah you know generally important to observe the laws of the thermodynamics and conservation of energy momentum and

that kind of thing I see Stephen um yes I would agree I want to direct this yeah okay we're we're we're straight on loss of physics but thoughts for innovators in the in the room um I think when I look at both what I've done you know certain what Yan's done whether number of people done you cast around and you look for areas that you begin to see either a glimmer of a new breakthrough type of thinking uh or the some technology in this sector has been left alone and not applied to that sector and or there's a just a need based on an Emerging Market uh and those are the things that actually are can be real drivers for success in Innovation uh when you see a glimmer of a breakthrough I mean Elon was telling me when he was a graduate student he was into energy

storage and super Capac things like that uh and I think many of us saw 8 10 years ago battery techn ology before that was crawling along crawling along crawling along and all of a sudden you see wait a minute there's beginning to see something that will uh take a different slope and if you think that it could take a different slope do those things to develop that technology and Surround you with people that help you develop that technology so you become the leader okay but but but there's something behind you that's building wave that you're going to ride and so that's very important uh and and so and in in the things I did in my research career when I was a graduate student lasers had been demonstrated in the early 60s the tunable laser was invented

by 1970 by 1972 even though my thesis advisor had not been in lasers didn't know lasers and I told them you know what we got to get into this technology but you get into it not by purchasing a laser you get into it by building the next best thing that keeps you ahead of the pack and then you can do signs no one else could do yeah I I can make two two recommendations which actually do slightly K physics which is I think a lot of times if if you want to do something really Innovative you have to apply a sort of first principles analysis not not and don't don't Reason by analogy analogies are referencing the past um so first principles means you you you look at the most fundamental truths in in a particular Arena uh um and and the things that really are

almost indisputably correct um and you reason up from there to a conclusion um and and if you if you see that that conclusion is at is at odds with with what people generally believe then you have an opportunity um now you can't operate like that on all things because it takes too much mental horsepower so most of your life you have to operate by reasoning by analogy but if you really want invate you must reason for first principles to identify the problem um and then you also should seek negative get a feedback this this sounds like a strange thing and see from from from your friends and from people who are knowledgeable people will not give you the negative feedback be cruel to be kind no it's not it's you just want you need to understand where you're

wrong it's got It's got nothing and and put feelings aside and a lot of times people can look at what you're doing and they know that's wrong but you have but but they don't want to hurt your feelings and that's why they don't tell you um so yeah yeah Stephen yeah we we're right at the end go ahead um I agree with for few more days um it'll be longer than that but but uh I think uh I agree with everything Elon said uh when you look at new technologies and you look there could be you know St called wild claims um but you what is the quote theoretical limitations but not theoretical Allah Heisenberg on Ser principle you know there's a lower theory that is beyond this it's just you know it's not going to make it and then you where is the technology and then

you say how much space is there between that that realistically you can get there in 5 years okay and and that actually helps Define things and and focuses the mind on what you should be thinking about what you shouldn't be thinking about so there are many things like that that I think successful innovators do all the time the constructive feedback the honest feedback is exactly what we were establishing in RP that's now being infected in the rest of the Departments of energy uh you know if you hear an idea that you don't really agree with instead of politely sitting there and being polite you say no you know that I don't think that's right you know this is why you know you're wrong and then and then you sit at a table and you talk about it and that's

where you figure out are you right are you wrong and then you have a deeper understanding of what's going on and that's the type of culture that we want to that start started in RP it certainly has to be continued in RP but to infect the rest of the Department of energy yeah ladies and gentlem we've come oh last last word I can make an announcement that maybe would be interesting um so uh everybody get Twitter out yeah exactly um so I I I really think that that the the Dee loan to to Tesla should be viewed as as a pretty significant success I mean we're we're we're we're exporting cars uh we're we're selling power trins to two of the most respected brands in the world Mercedes and and and Toyota uh we won electric car went car of the year last year I

mean this this is pretty good stuff I mean so if people are going to um you know attack the doe for floody cylindra for God's sake honestly um uh you know if then then there should be some praise for the doe when there is a success um I think you just help doe stock go up yeah and and and and so actually I want to make a public commitment and we're going to codify it that Tesla is going to cut the payment time in half of the loan so we have 10 years ahead of us the loan half or less great well we are uh we we are uh 2 minutes and 47 seconds over but I think when you're sitting with two of the most brilliant innovators in the United States they can lend us that that little extra time I want to uh thank you both for for sharing your insights into how make

this work uh I know I teased you a little bit about the government private sector thing but what we're doing here and I think what arpa is doing is so important of essentially creating a platform raising aspirationally where we need to go as a nation bringing uh participants into this so that they can get constructive feedback negative and positive uh and that they've got real world examples to see what you've done over and over and over again if we had another hour or two you know it's interesting I've had an opportunity in my position to interview a lot of geniuses and when you're around genius it gives you an opportunity because people organize the way they see the world these guys are slowing down a little bit for us right now when you're having a

beer with them late at night you can sort of see how they see the the future and how they're operating and it is really incredibly um valuable to all of us into people in room that you take the time uh to share with us and give us some on-ramps into how you see Innovation and how it works so thank you so much [Applause] [Music]