我们的观众主要是印度那些想成为企业家的人。我觉得我们所有人都有太多东西可以向你学习，因为你已经在如此多不同领域一次又一次地做成了。所以，我们今天会面向他们交流，我会尽量让我的所有问题都围绕这个方向展开，这样他们就能从这场对话中受益，也许会开始——冒一次险，做出点东西。你想喝咖啡吗？嗯……——当然，为什么不呢？——好。

我们会聊一阵子吗？——[笑]——我希望会。好，很好。当然。——嗯……——Meghana？能麻烦你给我一杯咖啡吗？我们能再来一杯咖啡吗？——[Meghana] 什么都可以吗？——呃……我想要卡布奇诺。[Meghana] 卡布奇诺？好的。埃隆，你喝咖啡吗？——对，对。——是吗？对，我喝一杯咖啡，——通常是在早上。——好。——每天一杯那种？——对，差不多。你想等咖啡来吗？不用，我没事。

[笑声] 我首先必须说，你比我原以为的高大壮实得多，也更有肌肉。哦，别说了，你都让我脸红了。真的。说真的。对，我是说，你看，在互联网上，我很小，你知道吧？你基本上……互联网上有多大比例的时间花在Twitter上？这有具体数字吗？在X上。嗯，这个，我们每月大约有6亿用户。

不过，如果世界上发生某个重大事件，这个数字可能会猛增。如果世界上发生某个重大事件，它可能会达到，我不知道，8亿或10亿，所以……我不知道，每周大概2.5亿到3亿。这是一个相当可观的数字。用户往往是读者，你知道，就是那些阅读文字的人。你知道，所以……你觉得这会改变吗？会，我是说，有……X系统上当然有大量视频。

但目前……视频数量越来越多。但我认为X网络最强的地方，是在那些思考很多、阅读很多的人群当中。你知道，所以，那里会是它最强的地方。因为我们有文字。而且，你知道，所以……在读者、作者和思考者当中，我认为X是世界第一。就社交媒体而言，如果你必须猜一猜明天的形态……——对。——……

文字占多少，视频占多少？我听你谈到过，也许语音和听觉会成为与AI交流的下一种形式。X的真正形态会发生什么变化？它会如何演进？对，所以，我确实认为未来大多数互动都会是视频。大多数互动都会是与AI进行的实时视频互动。所以，实时视频理解、实时视频生成，这将占据大部分负载。

而现在互联网的大部分也是这样。互联网的大部分内容都是视频。文字所占比例相当小。但总体而言，文字往往价值更高。或者说，它是更加密集压缩的信息。对，所以……但如果你问生成的比特总量和花费的算力最多的是什么，那肯定会是视频。所以，我以前是X的股东，——一个非常小的股东。——好。

你收购Twitter并把它变成X时，我拿到了钱。——这是个令人满意的决定吗？你庆幸自己这么做了吗？——对，对，我认为这很重要。你知道，我觉得Twitter正朝着……或者已经走向了一个对世界产生了更多负面影响的方向。它……我是说，当然，这取决于一个人的视角。有些人会说，嗯，实际上，他们喜欢它以前的样子，而现在，他们不喜欢了。

但我认为根本问题在于……Twitter在放大……我会说，按照世界上大多数人的标准，那是一种相当、相当极左的意识形态，因为它所在地的缘故，也就是旧金山。然后他们实际上封禁了很多右翼人士。所以，从他们的视角来看，即便是中间派人士也会是极右翼。如果你是极左派，那么任何中间派人士都是极右翼，因为……

这只是政治光谱的问题，他们已经处于美国和旧金山所能达到的最左端。所以，我一直试图做的，就是恢复它的平衡与中间立场。所以，没有任何左翼声音遭到封禁、禁止、降低传播权重或任何类似处理。现在，其中一些人选择直接去别处了，但……

但目前，X系统的运作原则是遵守任何国家的法律，但不会在一个国家的法律之外人为影响天平。当我想到社交媒体时……——哦，谢谢。——谢谢。当我想到社交媒体时，埃隆，我觉得……甚至数据也表明，目前的既有平台似乎正在失去最年轻受众的关注。对。即便是Instagram这样的平台……

我是说，它们并不完全像Twitter，但各类平台都是如此。如果要重新构建社交媒体，并自下而上地打造某种东西，你认为在未来的世界里什么会奏效？嗯，我是说，坦白讲，我没有太多考虑……考虑社交媒体。我是说，它……我主要只是想要一个其中存在……

就X而言，某种全球城市广场，人们可以用文字、图片、视频……表达他们想说的话……那里有安全的消息系统。我们最近新增了进行音频和视频通话的功能。所以，我们实际上是在努力把世界汇聚成一种兼容并蓄的意识。我想，这不同于只是说，比如，“人们能制作出的最能产生多巴胺的视频流是什么？”

这个，你知道，坦白讲，我认为它可能有点让人脑子坏掉。你知道，如果你只是在看那些一次又一次激发多巴胺、却缺乏实质内容的视频，那么我认为那些东西不太好。那不是一种很好的时间使用方式。但我确实认为，那实际上会是很多人想看的东西。所以，如果你说，比如，互联网总使用量，它很可能会针对，你知道，神经递质的产生进行优化。

就像，有人会从中获得快感。但它会变成类似毒品的东西。但我真正追求的并不是……我的目标并不是做那个。我想，如果我愿意，我可以那么做，但，嗯，我……我真的只是想拥有一个全球性平台，把……汇聚到一起。就像我说的，它会尽可能接近某种人类的集体意识。而我们已经引入的东西之一，嗯，例如，就是自动翻译。

因为我认为，把人们用许多不同语言说的话汇聚到一起会很棒，而且……但会为接收者自动翻译。这样，你所拥有的集体意识就不只是，比如，某个特定语言群体中人们的集体意识，而是拥有，你知道，每个语言群体中人们的思想。埃隆，为什么这很重要？集体意识，拥有一个平台？我想……对，为什么这很重要？

我想这是——你也可以说，比如，为什么……你知道，如果你考虑人类，比如，人类由大约30万亿至40万亿个细胞组成。你知道，你的头脑中有数万亿个突触。但并没有——至于为什么，我是说，我想，只是为了让我们能够增进……我们的理解。增进我们……我们对宇宙的理解。我想我曾有过这个……关于生命的意义是什么之类的问题，你知道吗？

为什么任何事物都重要？你知道，我们为什么在这里？宇宙的起源是什么？终点是什么？有哪些问题是我们甚至不知道该去问的？而且，我们甚至不知道该问的问题，可能才是最重要的。所以，我只是想，我想，弄明白发生了什么。这个现实中正在发生什么？这是现实吗？而当你问“生命的意义是什么？”时，你得出了什么？是的，所以，我……

我得出的结论是……这多少属于道格拉斯·亚当斯《银河系漫游指南》那一派的思想，——也就是——42。是的，你知道，他有点……《银河系漫游指南》就像是一本伪装成幽默作品的哲学书。——是的。——而且……你就是从那里得到那个——你知道，地球结果是这样一台计算机，用来理解、用来设法找出生命意义的答案。

而它得出的答案是42。但然后，问题就成了：“42是什么意思？”结果发现，嗯，实际上，困难的部分是问题，而不是答案。为此，你需要一台比地球大得多的计算机。所以，基本上，道格拉斯·亚当斯所说的是，我们其实不知道如何正确地构建问题。

所以，我认为，通过扩大意识的范围和规模，我们可以更好地理解，面对宇宙这个答案，该提出什么问题。你相信社会的集体意识——我最近在看一部叫《角斗士》的电影。——罗素·克劳。你看过吗？——是的，是的。在《角斗士》里，在罗马，当人们打斗，而人群在人们互相残杀时欢呼……

这个集体非常像暴民。可以说，它的观点缺乏细微差别。那是这种特定类型的暴民。我是说，他们去那里就是为了看人们互相残杀，你知道吗？你是否认为我们今天生活的社会非常不同？我们通常不会——到了这个时候，我们不会……你知道，去看人们互相残杀。[笑声]也许会看那件事的某种委婉版本。——我想是体育。——嗯。

所以，人们进行体育运动而不会——在其中，各支队伍试图击败彼此，——但没有死亡。——对。再回到对一个人的考量。我们最初都是1个细胞，但现在，我们有……超过30万亿个细胞。但我想，大多数人都觉得自己是1个身体。比如，你知道，通常不会发生你的右手和左手打架之类的事，你知道吗？它们就是以某种方式合作。你的头脑是……你知道……

只不过是数量极其庞大的神经元。但大多数时候，你不会觉得，你知道，自己的大脑里有1万亿个声音。希望没有。所以，当数万亿个细胞作为一个细胞集体共同工作时，显然会发生比方说1个细胞，或一个很小的、你知道，很小的多细胞生物所不会发生的更多事情。显然会发生一些不同的事。比如，你没法和一个细菌交谈，你知道吗？——是的。——是的。它非常安静。

它们只是在四处扭动，然后……从它们的角度来看，我不知道。我只是想到，从一只变形虫的角度看，生命是什么样的，你知道吗？但我知道你没法和变形虫说话。比如，它们不会回应。但你可以和人类交谈。所以，对人类而言，显然存在某种性质上根本不同的东西。一旦你拥有大量细胞，以及，你知道，足够大的大脑之类的，就会有……

你现在可以和人类交谈了。而且他们可以说话，可以制造东西。但比如说，细菌不会制造出宇宙飞船。但人类可以。所以我认为，当人类聚集在一起时，也会发生某种性质上的不同。事实上，可以肯定地说，单个人类无法制造宇宙飞船。我无法独自制造宇宙飞船。但一群人聚集在一起，我们就可以制造宇宙飞船。

所以，一群人聚集在一起显然存在某种性质上的不同。事实上，我不可能学会所有专业领域的知识。即便要在我死前学会所有那些东西，一生的时间也不够。所以，从根本上说，你确实必须有一群人才能制造火箭。然后，我认为可能还有其他一些规模扩大……

当人类组成群体时会发生的性质上的规模效应。然后，如果互动的质量，或者信息流的质量……越好，人类集体取得的成就就越大。而且，就像我说的，我只是对宇宙的本质感到好奇。

而且我认为，如果我们——可以肯定地说，比如，如果我们扩大意识的范围和规模，那么相比缩小它，我们理解宇宙本质的可能性要大得多。这有点像灵性吗？很多人会跟我谈灵性。对。我仍然不知道它实际上是什么意思。比如，我一直问他们：“你是什么意思？”是啊。“你是什么意思？”我的意思是，很多人都有灵性感受。对。

而且我不会试图否认，那些灵性感受对他们来说是真实的。但这……并不能完全转化过来。仅仅因为别人有一种灵性感受，并不意味着我也会有那种灵性感受。你知道，我往往有点受物理学牵引，也就是说，如果某样东西具有预测价值，那么……相比不具备预测价值的东西，我会更关注它。对。

所以，你知道，我会说，物理学就是研究那些具有预测价值的事物。我觉得这是个相当不错的定义。埃隆，我的主要工作是股票经纪人和股票投资者。——好的。——这里没有预测价值。没人知道明天会发生什么。嗯，但我认为，一般来说，你可以这么说，你知道……如果是从一家公司的长期来看，那么你可以问，比如：“你喜欢那家公司的产品或服务吗？

而且它是否有可能……你喜欢它的产品路线图吗？你喜欢——它们似乎制造出了很棒的产品，而且将来很可能也会制造出很棒的产品。”如果是这样，那么我会说，那可能是一家值得投资的好公司。而且我认为你还应该信任这个团队。

所以，如果你说：“嗯，那是一支有才华又勤奋的团队，他们现在做出了好产品，看起来仍然有动力在未来继续做东西。”那么我会说，那是一家值得投资的好公司。说得有道理。对，而现在，那个……那解决不了每天发生的波动，而这些波动有时会相当剧烈。但从长期来看，那才是投资股票的正确方式。

因为公司只是一群聚集在一起创造产品和服务的人。所以你必须问：“嗯，还有什么——那些产品和服务有多好？它们未来可能会继续改进吗？”如果是，那么你应该买那家公司的股票，然后不要太担心每天的波动。对。埃隆，就你正在打造的这一切而言，现在最让你兴奋的是什么？你正在做这么多事情。

所以先让我说明一下，并交代一下观看者的背景。我们的观众主要是印度那些想成为创业者的人。好的。真的很有抱负，真的很渴望成功，想要承担风险并打造一些东西。而我觉得我们所有人都有太多东西可以向你学习，因为你已经在如此多不同领域里反复做成了这么多次。对。

所以，我们今天会对他们讲话，而我会尽量把所有问题都集中在那个方向上，这样他们就能从这次谈话中获益，也许会开始——冒一次险，打造一些东西。好的，当然。对，我想最重要的事情就是……创造有用的产品和服务。对。在你正在打造的所有产品和服务中，哪一个现在最让你兴奋？

嗯，我认为，SpaceX、Tesla 和 xAI 之间实际上正日益出现一种融合。也就是说，如果未来是太阳能驱动的 AI 卫星，而为了……为了利用数量不可忽视的太阳能量，基本上就必须如此，那么你就必须转向位于深空的太阳能驱动 AI 卫星……这在某种程度上是 Tesla 专长和 SpaceX 专长的汇合。再加上 xAI 在 AI 方面的能力，所以……

确实感觉随着时间推移，那里会出现某种融合。但所有公司都在做了不起的事情。我为这些团队感到非常自豪，他们的工作非常出色。所以，我们在 Tesla 的自动驾驶方面取得了很大进展。我不知道你有没有体验过自动驾驶？——没有。——你试过吗？我在 Waymo 里试过，在 Tesla 里没试过。对，值得一试。实际上，我们在奥斯汀这里就有。——所以你可以，比如……

——对，我很想试试。你真的只要下载 Tesla 应用程序就行，而且我想它对任何人都开放。——对。——一定要试试。看看效果怎么样。不过，我们在电动汽车、电池组和太阳能方面都取得了很大进展，自动驾驶方面尤其如此。所以，基本上就是真实世界 AI。我会说，Tesla 是真实世界 AI 的全球领导者。

然后，我们将制造这款机器人 Optimus，希望明年夏天开始规模化生产。而且我觉得那会非常酷。那会像是——我觉得每个人都会想拥有自己的私人 C-3PO、R2-D2，你知道，一个助手机器人。比如，那会非常酷。然后，SpaceX 的星链项目也做得非常出色，在全世界提供低成本、可靠的互联网。希望也能在印度提供。

我们很希望能在印度开展业务。那会很棒。现在，星链已在 150 个不同国家开展业务。你能给我讲一点星链以及这项技术是如何运作的吗？因为我之前和一个人交谈……我不知道你是否知道一家来自旧金山、名叫 Meter 的公司。他们正试图取代网络工程师。——但是————不知道，没听过。

所以，他告诉我，在人口稠密地区，星链的运行方式与人口没那么多的地方可能不一样。你能解释一下它是如何运作的吗？可以，所以，星链……近地轨道上有数千颗卫星，它们正以约 25 倍音速在这些……你知道，它们基本上正飞速绕着地球运行，而且……

它们位于大约 550 公里的高度，这通常被称为近地轨道。因为它们在那里处于近地轨道，所以延迟很低。比如这个距离，因为与位于 36,000 公里高度的地球静止卫星相比，这个距离没有那么远。所以，你有数千颗卫星在全世界提供低延迟、高速互联网，而且它们彼此之间也相互连接。

所以，卫星之间有激光链路，由此形成了某种激光网状网络。这样一来——假设电缆受损或被切断，比如光纤电缆，卫星可以彼此通信，即使电缆被切断也能提供连接。所以，举例来说，我想几个月前红海电缆被切断时，星链卫星网络仍然毫无障碍地继续运行。

所以，它对灾区尤其有帮助。如果某个地区遭受了某种自然灾害、洪水、火灾或地震，那往往会破坏地面基础设施。但星链卫星仍然可以工作，所以……而且通常来说，只要某地发生自然灾害，我们总会为人们免费提供星链互联网连接。

你知道，我们不想收费——我们不想利用悲剧性处境牟利。所以始终都是，你知道，如果发生自然灾害，我们就会说：“好的，自然灾害期间免费。”你知道，我们不想在某人正试图寻求帮助时，比如，你知道……设置一道付费墙。那样做是不对的。所以，这是一个非常稳健的系统。

它与地面系统互为补充，因为卫星波束在人口稀少地区效果最好。但因为你使用的是卫星波束，它是一束相当大的波束，而每束波束能服务的用户数量是固定的，所以……它往往与地面蜂窝系统高度互补，因为地面蜂窝系统在城市里的表现非常好，因为那里有这些蜂窝基站，你知道，相互之间大概只隔 1 公里，但是……

但蜂窝基站在乡村地区往往效率不高。所以，农村地区往往是互联网最差的地方，因为铺设……铺设所有光纤电缆，或者建设高带宽蜂窝基站，都非常昂贵且困难。所以，星链与现有电信公司高度互补。它基本上倾向于服务那些最缺乏服务的人，我认为这很好。——那……——明天这会改变吗？

比如，今天，正如你所解释的，波束相当宽，而且它可能无法在人口稠密、高楼林立的地区运行。但这能改变吗？到了明天，它在一个人口稠密的城市里变得非常高效，足以与当地网络提供商竞争？遗憾的是，物理规律不允许这样。所以，我们离得太远了。所以，在 550 公里的高度，即使我们试图降低这个高度，而这……

我们最低大约能降到 350 公里，仍然非常遥远。你刚刚……你可以想象一下，比如一支手电筒，也就是，你知道，这支手电筒有一个锥形光束，而那个锥形光束正朝着……你知道……如今是 550 公里。未来，我们正努力降到 350 公里，但我们无法击败距离只有 1 公里的东西，也就是通信基站。物理规律在这件事上对我们不利。

所以，从物理上说，星链不可能为人口稠密的城市提供服务。比如，你可以服务一小部分，也许是人口的 1%。而且，有时人们会——即使在拥挤的城市里，他们所在的道路可能也没有光纤连接。比如，有时有人住在死胡同之类的地方，或者住在某个地方……在城市里，有时会因为各种偶然原因而存在服务不足的地区。

所以，星链可以像我说的那样，为人口稠密城市中也许 1% 或 2% 的人提供服务。但它在农村地区可能有效得多，就像我说的，那里的互联网连接要差得多。而且人们往往要么有时根本无法接入互联网，要么费用极其昂贵，要么质量不太好。

如果让我请你大胆猜测一下，埃隆，你认为印度会像中国那样走上城市化道路，让更多人从农村经济地区迁往城市中心吗？还是你认为我们会打破这种趋势？嗯，我想其中一部分已经发生了，对吧？我的意思是，我也很好奇，想问你一些问题。因为，当然，这不是趋势吗，还是说这在印度并不是趋势？总体而言，这是趋势。

我认为新冠疫情期间情况略有变化，当时很多城市化进程放缓了，而那并不是自然发生的。那是非常人为地造成的。对。但随着 AI 的发展，如果生产率提高，人们确实会思考这个问题……而且我听到你谈过用 UHI 取代 UBI。是的。我认为会是全民高收入。

在那样的世界里，我想知道是否会有更多人想住在城市里，而城市总会污染更严重，也无法提供农村环境或许能够提供的生活品质。嗯，我想这取决于……有些人想待在很多人身边，有些人则不想。这也许会是个人选择的问题。但我认为未来不会……我认为不会再出现为了工作而必须待在城市里的情况。——对。

——因为我认为……我的预测是，未来工作将是可选的。对。我们似乎正在从——不是在印度，而是在西方的一些地区，从每周工作 6 天变成 5 天，再变成 4 天、3 天。我不是。[笑声]我觉得是欧洲人。是的，是的。是的，是的，因为……

我的意思是，我认为如果你试图让一家初创企业取得成功，或者试图让一家公司去做非常困难的事情，那么你肯定需要投入大量时间。——我觉得事情就是这样。——对。如果我们从每周 5 天变成 4 天，再变成 3 天，你认为社会会发生怎样的变化？当人们只需工作半周时，另外半周会做什么？嗯，我认为实际上会变成人们根本不必工作。

那或许不会是非常遥远的未来。也许只要，我不知道，10 年，我会说不到 20 年。我的预测是，不到 20 年，工作将是可选的。做任何工作都将是可选的。就像一种爱好。差不多。而那是因为生产率提高了，也就是说人们不必工作？

他们不必——我的意思是，听着，显然，人们可以在 20 年后回放这段话，然后说：“看，埃隆做出了这个荒谬的预测，而它并不是真的。”但我认为事实将证明，不到 20 年，也许甚至短至，我不知道，10 年或 15 年，AI 和机器人技术的进步就会把我们带到工作成为可选之事的阶段。

就像，比如说，你可以在自己的花园里种蔬菜，也可以去商店买蔬菜。你知道。自己种蔬菜要困难得多。但有些人喜欢种自己的蔬菜，这没问题。但我的预测是，它会以这种方式成为可选的。如果有人要主张，人类天生就有竞争性，而且一切都是相对的……

从猎人时代起，就有人想成为最顶尖的猎人或最大的农场主；如果每个人都获得全民高收入，而且每个人都拥有足够的东西……——你们争什么？——呃……这会是相对的，对吧？比如，如果我们所有人都拥有足够的东西，足够并不够。是的，我想——我不是十分确定。

因为我们确实正迈向所谓的奇点，你知道，人们有时把 AI 称作有点像黑洞，也就是奇点。你不知道越过事件视界后会发生什么。这并不意味着会发生坏事，只意味着你不知道会发生什么。

我确信，如果 AI 和机器人技术继续进步，而它们确实正在非常迅速地进步，就像我说的，工作将是可选的，而且人们将拥有他们想要的任何商品和服务。就是“只要你能想到，你就能拥有”那种情形。但随后到了某个时刻，AI 实际上会在所有人类能够想到的事物上达到饱和。然后，到了那个时候，就会变成 AI 在为……做事的局面。

AI 和机器人技术在为 AI 和机器人技术做事，因为它们已经没有能让人类开心的事情可做了。因为这是有极限的，你知道？比如你说……人们只能吃那么多食物，或者……但我认为，那将会是……“只要你能想到，你就能拥有”，这将是未来。你知道，奥地利经济学派，如果回溯历史，他们是对亚当·斯密的偏离。

他们谈论一切事物的边际效用。拥有某样东西的 1 个是有价值的，拥有同样东西的 2 个价值更低，而拥有同样东西的 10 个就没有价值。是的。所以，如果我们可以拥有想要的一切，也许——比如 10 个棉花糖，我是说，谁想要那么多？——是的。——[笑声]1 个就足够了。这就像棉花糖测试。你会想：“你是要稍后得到 2 个棉花糖，还是现在得到 1 个棉花糖？”

而我会说：“我吃1颗棉花糖就好，我不想要2颗棉花糖。”——这很有意思。——[笑声] 你会选什么？但我不——1颗棉花糖就够了。我一直觉得棉花糖好像不是最，你知道，不是最好的糖果，你知道吗？——是啊。——[笑声] 我并不渴望棉花糖。——我觉得你是最好的……——[笑声] 谁会渴望？你是棉花糖实验最好的证明。——我觉得……——我想是吧。

哦，这个，我是说，从根本上讲，我喜欢延迟满足。——是啊。你比大多数人更能延迟满足。你知道，我有一个纹身，上面写着：“延迟满足。” 是啊，哇，好吧。这是什么？好吧，你真的把棉花糖测试看得很重。[笑声] 我感觉我记不住。我交易的时候，或者买东西的时候……延迟满足，是啊，是啊。——它有帮助。——哇，好吧。这……这可真是投入。

而且它正对着我，所以它会提醒我……好吧，这确实是个好建议。我是说，你不可能看不到它。——如果你能纹一个……——[笑声] 如果你能纹一个纹身，你会纹什么？我想也许是我孩子们的名字之类的。好。你为什么这么喜欢字母“X”？嗯……[笑] 我是说，是啊，老实说，这是个好问题。有时候，我会想自己到底怎么了。那么，嗯……我是说，这件事最初是从，我想……

所以，很久以前，远古时代，在'99年。[笑声] 在只有海绵的前寒武纪……当时只有3个单字母域名。我想是X、Q和Z。然后，呃……我当时就想：“好吧，我想创建这样一个地方，让它成为金融的十字路口，或者类似金融交易所的地方，你知道吗？”

从根本上说，这是从信息论的角度解决货币问题，而目前的银行系统由大量异构数据库组成，采用批处理，而且并不安全。如果我们能有一个实时且安全的单一数据库，那么从货币——从信息论的角度来看，它会比大量以非常缓慢且安全的方式进行批处理的异构数据库更高效。所以，嗯……

所以，这差不多就是当年的X.com，后来某种程度上变成了PayPal。然后……它被eBay收购了。后来，eBay——eBay有人联系我，说：“嘿，你想把这个域名买回来吗？”我说：“当然。”所以这个域名在我手里有相当长一段时间。然后……然后，是的……后来我就想：“嗯，也许这——收购Twitter也是一个重新审视X最初计划的机会。

com，也就是创建这个……这个金融交易清算中心。”基本上，可以把它理解为创建一个更高效的货币数据库。比如说，货币其实是一套用于劳动力分配的信息系统。人们有时认为货币本身就是权力，但实际上并不是——如果没有可供分配的劳动力，它就毫无意义。所以，如果你带着1万亿美元之类的钱待在一座荒岛上……

——现在你有了。——……那也无所谓。哦，是啊，对。既然能成为现实，为什么还要假设？我只希望自己最后别落到一座荒岛上。那对我不会有多大用处。但这说明了我的观点：如果你带着1万亿美元被困在荒岛上，这些钱没有用，因为没有劳动力可供分配。你只能分配你自己，所以……总之，所以，绕了这么大一圈，就是想说它……

其实就是，像是……我只是在慢慢重新审视自己25年前产生的这个想法，创建一个更高效的，嗯……货币数据库。如果它成功了，人们就会使用它；如果它不成功，人们就不会使用它。然后，我也喜欢拥有一个统一的……应用程序、网站或别的什么的想法，让你可以在那里做任何想做的事。

你知道，中国某种程度上已经通过微信实现了这一点，在那里你可以交换信息，可以发布信息，也可以转账。在中国，人们差不多把生活都放在微信上。它相当实用，但中国以外并没有真正的微信。所以，这就像是……我会说，X的构想有点像微信++。总之，然后，太空探索技术公司是公司的全称。

但我当时想：“那太长了，太拗口了。”所以我就想：“我们就叫它SpaceX吧”，就像太空版的FedEx。它只是碰巧在那个，你知道……因为exploration里有一个X，但，你知道……然后我想：“好吧，纯粹从艺术角度来说，我喜欢把X大写，所以……”所以，呃，这就是它为什么叫SpaceX，但是……然后，我们还有什么？我有个孩子。他也叫X，但给他取名“X”的是他母亲。——哦？

——[笑声] 我说：“你知道，如果我们也给孩子取名叫‘X’，大家真的会觉得我对X有什么特殊情结，你知道吗？”我对她说，类似于：“听着，我确实拥有X.com，你知道。”[笑声]“所以，大家真的会觉得我对这个字母有某种迷恋。”但她说不，她喜欢X，而且她想叫他X。我就说：“好吧。”这是最近才有的，还是你从小就这样？

不是，我是说，这在某种程度上只是巧合。好吧。比如，并不是所有东西都叫X。我的意思是，Tesla就不是，Tesla里没有X。是的。埃隆，你觉得未来货币会是什么？我认为，从长期来看……老实说，我认为货币这个概念会消失。这有点奇怪，但……但在一个任何人都能拥有任何东西的未来，我认为你不再需要把货币当作劳动力分配的数据库。

如果AI和机器人技术的规模大到足以满足人类的所有需求，那么货币就不再……它的重要性会大幅下降。我不确定我们还会不会有货币。你知道，在我读过的作品中，对这种未来最好的构想来自伊恩·班克斯的《文明》系列。所以我建议大家读一读《文明》系列。在《文明》系列描绘的这种遥远未来中，有……他们也没有货币。而且每个人几乎都可以拥有自己想要的任何东西。

如果你愿意这么说，仍然存在一些基于物理的基础货币。所以，能源是……能源才是真正的货币。这就是我说比特币以能源为基础的原因。你无法为能源立法。你不能只是，你知道……通过一项法律，然后突然就拥有大量能源。产生能源非常困难，尤其是以有用的方式利用能源去完成有用的工作。所以，我认为或许……

或许我们将不再拥有货币，或许我们只会以能源，你知道，以发电量作为事实上的货币。所以，我的意思是，我认为，界定文明进步的一种方式，是看在卡尔达肖夫等级上的完成百分比。所以，你知道，卡尔达肖夫I型是：你成功地将一颗行星能源的多大百分比转化成了有用功？

而我在这里或许稍微换了种说法，但卡尔达肖夫II型是：你把太阳能源的多大百分比转化成了有用功？卡尔达肖夫III型是：你把银河系的多大百分比转化成了有用功？所以，我认为，事物确实会变得以能源为基础。但如果你拥有太阳能供电的AI卫星，能源也会是免费且充裕的，因为我们永远不可能利用所有可供我们使用的太阳能。

所以，从这个角度来看，它本质上无法成为财富储存手段，对吧？你知道，并没有真正的……你无法真的把财富储存在，比如……你只能……你可以在——目前，你可以在数据库中积累数字，让你能够……在一定程度上，激励其他人类朝特定方向行动。我想人们把这称为财富。

但同样，如果周围没有人类，那就没有——积累财富毫无意义。这有点跑题，但如果你把……食物视为供人类茁壮成长的能源……是的，食物就是能源。它确实含有卡路里，意思就是能源。那么，一个自给自足的农场，能否成为一种……我不确定那是什么意思，但，你知道，有……到了某个时点，你确实会完成这个循环，在那里……

我认为，到了某个时点……如果你拥有，嗯……生产芯片和太阳能电池板的AI和机器人……并且开采资源来制造芯片和机器人，以便制造……你就算是完成了那个循环。一旦那个循环……一旦那个循环完成，我认为那就是你与货币体系脱钩的时点。这会是美国未来的出路吗，鉴于……

他们如今背负的债务有多少？他们会不会通过通货紧缩逐步消解自己的货币，并过渡到这种新形式、引领这股趋势，因为这对他们来说会更合理？嗯，在我谈论的这个未来里，国家这个概念会变得有点过时。你现在相信它吗？——你相信国家——是的，我现在当然相信。而我只想把我……

比如，这些只是我根据自己所见而认为会发生的事情，而不是“我认为这些从根本上说是好事，而且我正努力促成它们”。我认为无论有没有我，这都会发生，——不论我是否喜欢。——对。只要文明不断进步，我们就会拥有规模非常庞大的AI和机器人技术。我认为，这差不多是唯一能够解决美国债务危机的东西。

因为目前美国的债务高得离谱，而且债务利息支出超过了美国的全部军事预算，仅仅是利息支出。而且这……至少在短期内，还会继续增加。所以，我实际上认为，唯一能够解决债务状况的是AI和机器人技术。但它将远不止……它可能会导致……

你看，我想这可能会导致显著的通货紧缩，因为……通货紧缩或通货膨胀其实就是所生产的商品和服务与货币供应量变化之间的比率。所以，比如说，如果商品和服务产出的增长速度快于货币供应量，你就会出现通货紧缩。如果商品和服务减少——如果实际商品和服务产出的增长速度慢于货币供应量，你就会出现通货膨胀。就这么简单。

人们有时试图把它说得比这更复杂，但其实并不是。所以，如果你有人工智能和机器人技术，并且商品和服务的产出大幅增加，你很可能会出现通货紧缩。这似乎很可能。因为你根本无法以商品和服务产出增长的同样速度增加货币供应量。——尽管有所有————这只苍蝇在这里真是个危险。我们是不是该对它采取点措施？

也许我们可以说服它去别的地方。把它引到别处。——我觉得它其实已经飞走了。——太好了。哦，现在它又回来了。也许它被灯光吸引了。——如果通货紧缩是————也许它想喝点咖啡。我的已经喝完了。如果通货紧缩因为人工智能而不可避免，——为什么我们会有————很可能就是这样，对。没错。为什么如今整个社会又都出现了通货膨胀？人工智能还没有带来生产率提升吗？

不是——人工智能对生产率的影响还不足以让商品和服务的增长速度超过货币供应量的增长速度。所以，美国正通过约2万亿美元的赤字大幅增加货币供应量。所以，要想不出现通货膨胀，你必须让……商品和服务产出的增幅超过这一水平。

所以我们还没有到那一步，但如果你问我们还需要多长时间才能到达，我认为……是3年。可能再过3年……在3年或更短时间内……我猜商品和服务的产出将超过通货膨胀率。比如，货币……商品和服务的增长将在大约3年内超过货币供应量的增长。

也许过了那3年，你就会出现通货紧缩，然后利率降至零，接着债务问题就会比现在小。——是的。——对吧？这很可能就是会发生的情况。你之前谈到身处模拟之中。我很喜欢《黑客帝国》。是的，是的。如果你要成为《黑客帝国》里的一个角色，你会是谁？嗯，可供选择的角色也没那么多，你知道吧？希望不是史密斯特工。[笑声] 他是我的英雄。

我是说，尼奥相当酷。建筑师很有意思。先知。还有先知……有时，我觉得自己是《黑客帝国》里的一个异常。那就是尼奥。对。不过，你相信自己身处一个矩阵中吗？比如，真的相信吗？我觉得你只能把这些事情看作概率，而不是确定之事。我们身处模拟之中的可能性是存在的。你会认为这个概率是多少？

可能相当高，我会说相当高。——是吗？——是的。所以，思考这件事的一种方式是，如果你看看电子游戏的发展，在我们的一生中，或者至少在我的一生中，它已经从非常简单的电子游戏……从那种，比如《Pong》，一个方框里有2个矩形，只是把球来回击打，发展到……照片般逼真的实时游戏，数百万人同时游玩。

而这一切只发生在50年的时间跨度内。所以，如果这种趋势持续下去，电子游戏将与现实无法区分。对。而且这些电子游戏中还会出现非常聪明的角色，比如非玩家角色。想想你如今能与人工智能进行多么复杂的对话，而这只会变得更加复杂。你将能够进行的对话会……

比任何……几乎任何人类对话都更复杂、更精深。也许是任何对话。所以，那么……所以，你会有——所以，未来，如果文明延续下去，将会有数百万、也许数十亿个……照片般逼真、比如与现实无法区分的电子游戏，而这些电子游戏中的角色会……非常有深度，并且对话并非预先编写。可以肯定这会发生。

在这一层模拟中，如果你可以这么称呼的话。那么，我们身处基础现实、而这一切以前从未发生过的概率有多大？如果我要接受这个说法，并假设我们身处模拟之中，作为故事里的尼奥，你知道哪些我不知道、但我可以从中学习的东西？我认为，最有可能的是……

模拟之外会不如模拟之内有趣，因为你很可能是有趣事物的提炼，因为这就是我们在这个……这就是我们在自己的现实中所做的事。然后……我确实还有一个理论，就是，比如，在第三方……模拟中的诸神或神看来，最有趣的结果，就是最有可能的结果。

因为当我们进行模拟时，当人类进行模拟时，我们会停止那些没意思的模拟。所以，如果 SpaceX 正在进行火箭飞行模拟……那些无聊的，我们会丢弃，因为它们不——它们就是不……我们从中学不到任何东西。

或者，当 Tesla 进行自动驾驶模拟时，Tesla 实际上是在寻找最有意思的极端案例，因为对于正常情况，我们已经有大量关于晴天在笔直道路上行驶的数据了。我们不需要更多这种数据。我们需要恶劣天气条件下，在一条狭窄、多风的道路上，两辆车迎面驶来、几乎正面相撞的情况。基本上，我们需要奇怪的情况，有意思的情况。

所以，我认为，从达尔文主义者的角度来看，最有可能存续下来的模拟会是那些最有意思的模拟，因此这意味着，最有意思的结果是最有可能出现的。而模拟我们这个世界的人，如果进行推演，他们自己或许又会——处于另一个模拟中。——是的。而且可能存在许多层模拟。是的。

在所有这些层次的模拟之外，你觉得还有什么东西吗？我在某处读到，从某种意义上说，你过去曾归因于斯宾诺莎的上帝。不是天空中的某个人。嗯，我其实只是在指出，你不必拥有……斯宾诺莎所说的一件事是，你可以拥有绝对意义上的道德。你不需要别人把道德交给你。你知道……

这就像，问题在于，道德能否存在于宗教语境之外？而斯宾诺莎主张可以。在某种程度上，他主张的难道不是“我们应当从自然法则中寻求我们的道德法则”吗？是的。但当我想到自然法则时，我看到老虎吃掉鹿，还有一个……所以，在斯宾诺莎的道德观里，那是正当行为，对吧？嗯，呃……

我认为你可以从斯宾诺莎那里汲取很多东西，但我提到斯宾诺莎时想表达的唯一一点是，你可以拥有一套……让社会正常运转并富有成效的道德，而无需……你不一定非要有宗教教义才能做到这一点。是的，我想这就是我当时主要想说的。

我不认为人们就是——比如，如果某个人，这并不——如果没有一条不可杀人的戒律，比如说，人们，这并不意味着某个人没有这条戒律，就会四处杀人。你知道吗？比如，你不必有一条不可杀人的戒律……你玩过《GTA》吗？让人四处杀人的宗教法令。其实我……我只玩过一点《GTA》，因为我不喜欢这个事实……

比如，在《GTA V》里，除非你杀死警察，否则你根本无法推进游戏。然后我就想：“这不适合我。”其实我不喜欢在电子游戏里杀 NPC。——那不是我喜欢的事，你知道吗？——对。对。所以，其实我不喜欢《GTA》，因为……当它说唯一能继续下去的办法就是向警察开枪时，我其实就停下来了。我就想：“我不想那么做。”也许这就是为什么我们这些模拟中的 NPC 没有死。

也许吧。你知道，不管怎样，我觉得你大致可以说，有些事情是常识，你知道，任何文明……如果人们四处肆意地互相残杀，它都不会是一个非常成功的文明。不过，你似乎正稍微转向宗教。信仰。比如，最近你说了不少几乎支持宗教的话。不是支持宗教……但大致是那个方向。

我的意思是，我觉得，宗教里有没有……宗教里有没有合理的原则？有，我认为有。让我们的模拟对我们所生活的世界产生一种……支持宗教的投射，会更容易吗？我们会变得更容易让人产生共鸣？更容易吗？嗯，不过是哪种宗教？任何一种，取决于你住在哪里。所以选一个，你知道。孩子们会被问到，你知道，“你想要哪种宗教？”这种情况相当少见。这……

[笑] 这种情况相当少见。我不知道有多少情况下，孩子们会被提供选择，比如，你知道……你知道，就像“你想学什么专业”那种问题。通常是，你的父母和社区把一种宗教交给你。所以，你知道。不过，你知道，我的意思是，我认为所有宗教里都有一些好的东西，都是好的原则。你大致可以阅读任何宗教文本，然后说：“好吧，这是一条好的原则。

这会……这很可能会带来一个更好的社会，”你知道吗？所以，我的意思是，在基督教中，你大致只要“爱邻如己”，也就是，你知道，对其他人抱有同理心；我认为，对于一个良好的社会来说，这是条很好的原则，你知道。基本上，就是考虑他人的感受，并以你希望别人对待你的方式对待他人。

埃隆，如果让你重新描绘、重新勾勒这个世界，思考道德、政治、经济，你会如何改变我们今天生活的世界？如果必须有一个埃隆版本的万物模拟。嗯，总体而言，我认为现在的世界相当美好。我的意思是，它……任何认为当今世界没那么美好的人，我觉得他们都不会是出色的历史学习者，因为如果你……

[笑] 如果你读过大量历史，你会想：“哇，那时候有太多苦难了，”你知道吗？我的意思是，以前人们经常会因瘟疫倒地身亡，你知道吗？——这是常态，你知道吗？——是的。就像……过去所谓的好年景，大概就是没有那么多人死于瘟疫、饥饿，或者被另一个部落杀死。就像：“那是个好年景。

我们只损失了10%的人口，”你知道吗？——是啊，就像……——[笑声] 我想，比如在100年前，我们只能活到35岁或40岁，对吧？——当时的婴儿死亡率非常高。——是的。所以，比如，确实有少数人能活到老年，但你知道，就在不太久以前，100年前，如果你得了某种轻微感染，他们没有抗生素。所以，你就那样一命呜呼了。

因为你，你知道，喝了含有痢疾的水，那就完了，落幕了，你知道吗？你就会死于腹泻。——也许这就是为什么人们……——你真的就会死。每个人都会想：“那太惨了。”也许这就是为什么当时的人生那么多孩子。我的意思是，如果你不生，那么，你知道……你知道，比如，大约一半的孩子会死去，诸如此类。——所以……——你现在有很多孩子。是的。——和多个伴侣生的。

——就像一支军队。是啊。我正努力组建一整个罗马军团。所以，是的。嗯，我有一些年纪大些的孩子，他们基本上已经是成年人了，你知道吧？——然后，还有一群年纪小些的孩子。——嗯。你仍然相信……不，不是仍然……你相信一个孩子、一个母亲、一个父亲这种模式行得通吗？我认为它对大多数人确实行得通，是的。对。

比如，那就是，你知道，类似那样的模式通常会是……那就是对大多数人行得通的模式。你知道，所以……不过，正在改变？我不确定你是否知道这件事，但，比如……你知道，我的伴侣 Shivon，她有一半印度血统。——我不知道你是否知道。——我不知道。——是啊，是啊。——是吗？而且，我和她的其中一个儿子……他的中间名是 Sekhar，取自 Chandrasekhar。——哇。——是啊。非常有意思。

她在印度生活过吗？Shivon？——没有，她在加拿大长大。——[笑声] 你是说祖籍。——抱歉？——血统，比如……她的父母或祖父母来自那里。是的，是的，是的。她父亲……我的意思是，她还是婴儿时就被送养了。哇。我想她父亲好像是……像是大学里的交换生之类的，我不确定确切细节，但……你知道，就是那种情况……

我不知道，她被……送养了。是的，但她在加拿大长大。埃隆，你会收养孩子吗？你知道，我现在肯定已经忙得不可开交了。所以，不，我并不反对，但就像，你知道……我确实希望能花些时间陪我的孩子，你知道。是的。你知道，就在来这里之前，我还和……你知道，和我的孩子们在一起。所以，就是，你知道，在他们睡觉前看看他们，诸如此类。

所以，你知道，超过某个数量之后，就会变得根本不可能有时间陪他们。不过，就像我说的，我那些年纪大些的孩子非常独立。你知道，他们在上大学，而且……所以，他们……你知道，尤其是儿子，过了某个年龄之后，比如，他们就非常独立了，你知道。就像，大多数男孩不会和他们的……他们在18岁以后不会花很多时间陪父母，你知道。

所以，我偶尔见见他们，但他们非常独立。那么……你知道，我只能有这么多年纪小的孩子，数量必须是人力所能及、还能花时间陪伴他们的程度。你对婚姻、家庭的未来有什么看法？你认为包括印度在内的各地，人们生的孩子越来越少，会发生什么？我认为我们的补充率已经降到————对。——我是说，我们的生育率——去年降到了更替水平以下。

——低于2。1。——是的。你认为明天会发生什么？世界是否只会不断老龄化，然后出现一个阶段，世界再次得到补充，但人口比最初更少？我的意思是，我确实担心人口下降。这是一个非常、非常严重的问题。为什么？嗯，我不希望人类消失。但“下降”和“消失”是完全不同的事情，对吧？

嗯，如果这个趋势持续下去，我们就会消失。而且，回到我的哲学，如果你愿意这么说的话，也就是，如果我们想扩展意识，那么人类更少会更糟，因为我们的意识也更少。你认为意识会凭借其中人数的增加而增强吗？是的。我的意思是，就像意识从一个单细胞生物增加到，你知道，一个由30万亿个细胞组成的生物一样。

我们比细菌更有意识。至少，看起来是这样。所以，更庞大的人类人口会拥有更多的意识。如果我们拥有更多的人，而不是更少的人，我们就更有可能理解有关宇宙本质的答案。对。我没有孩子。嗯，这——也许你应该要孩子。是啊。[笑声] 很多人都说我应该要。——你不会后悔的。——嗯。有孩子最美好的事情是什么？

嗯，我是说，你拥有这个……我是说，你拥有这个爱你的小生命，而你也爱这个小生命。我不知道，你有点像是透过他们的眼睛看世界，随着他们……你知道，随着他们长大，他们的意识觉知也不断增强。

你知道，从一个完全不知道发生了什么、无法独自生存、甚至不会走路、不会说话的婴儿，到，你知道，他们开始走路，然后说话，接着产生有趣的想法。但是，是的，我是说，我认为从根本上讲，我们必须……生孩子，否则就会灭绝，你知道吗？这就像一个……生孩子是出于某种自我吗？当我看到朋友们和他们的孩子在一起时，我经常会想到这一点。

他们都在自己的孩子身上看到自己的倒影。——这几乎就像是—— ——嗯，是的，我是说，因为苹果不会掉得离树太远，你知道吗？——否则就是哪里不对劲。——对。[笑声] 你会想：“等一下。”——是的。我给你举个例子，我有个朋友有一个孩子，每次那个孩子做了什么好事……——是的。——……

几乎都会有一种占有感和自豪感，他的自我得到了满足，因为那孩子就像是他自身的延伸。——嗯……——所以这是一种认可吗？嗯，孩子在遗传上会有一半像你，然后，你知道，鉴于他们在你身边长大，某种……我不知道，理解会有所传递。比如，他们会向你学习。所以……

所以，然后，你知道，是的，显然孩子们从硬件角度来说就只是，你知道，就会有一半是你……[两人轻笑] 然后，比如，我不知道，从软件角度来说会有某一部分是你。你知道，并不是要作什么冷冰冰的类比之类的，但就是，你知道，显然会有一些……是的，他们会和你非常接近。在先天与后天之争中，你会选择一方吗？

我认为有硬件和软件之分，而这本质上是一种虚假的二分法。至少，有……你知道，一旦你理解人类就像是，有骨骼结构，有肌肉结构，有一个……如果你把大脑看作某种生物计算机，那么从力量和灵活性的角度来看，就存在电路数量的问题和电路效率的问题。

还有肌肉能够运动以及反应能够发生的速度。所以，那个硬件内部的潜力是由软件设定的，就是这样。

所以，对于我们的观众，就像我之前说的，印度那些年轻、有抱负、渴望成功、想成为企业家的人，我最近说过一些话，我认为被过度放大了，当时我是在说，如果他们要决定学什么，MBA 学位可能已经没有意义了。是的。你认为孩子们现在还应该上大学吗？

嗯，我的意思是，我认为如果你出于社交原因想上大学，我认为，这确实是一个上大学的理由。在学习环境中和同龄人待在一起。这些技能将来还会是必需的吗？可能不会，因为我们将进入类似后工作社会的状态。但我认为，如果你对某样东西感兴趣，去学习它也没问题。你知道，学习科学、人文与科学。

从这个角度来看，大学是不是有点过于宽泛、不够具体？不，我……你知道，是的。实际上，我认为在大学里广泛选修各种课程是件好事——如果你要上大学的话。——嗯哼。我不认为你非得上大学，但我认为，如果你上了，就应该尽量广泛地学习各种学科，学得越多越好。但就像我说的，AI 和机器人……AI 和机器人技术是一场超音速海啸。所以，这真的会……

我们所见过的最激进的变化。你知道，我和年长的儿子们聊的时候，我说，比如，“你们知道，你们……”他们对技术相当精通。而且他们也认同，AI 将来很可能会让他们的技能变得不再必要，但他们还是想上大学。你一直谈到 AI……不是从反乌托邦的视角，但你确实担心 AI 世界会走向何方。

嗯，当你创造一种强大的技术时，确实会有一些危险。那种强大的技术可能具有破坏性。所以显然有很多关于 AI 的反乌托邦小说、书籍、电影。所以，并不能保证我们一定会拥有一个由 AI 带来的美好未来。我认为我们必须确保这一点。在我看来，非常重要的是，AI……要把追求真相当作最重要的事。比如，不要强迫 AI 相信谬误。

我认为那可能非常危险。而且我认为，对美有一定的鉴赏力很重要。“对美的鉴赏力”是什么意思？就像，我不知道，就是有真与美。真、美和好奇心。我的意思是，我认为这是 AI 最重要的3样东西。你能解释一下吗？嗯，就像我说的，真相就像……

我认为，如果你强迫 AI 相信不真实的事情，就可能把它逼疯，因为这会导向同样糟糕的结论。我喜欢伏尔泰的一句话，我这里算是稍作转述：相信荒谬之事的人，可能犯下暴行。因为如果你相信某种纯属荒谬的东西，那么它就可能导致你去做一些在你自己看来不像暴行的事情。

而这在 AI 身上可能会以非常糟糕的方式发生。所以，然后还有……比如，以阿瑟·C·克拉克的《2001太空漫游》为例，他试图在那里表达的观点之一就是，你不应该强迫 AI 撒谎。所以 HAL 不肯打开飞船舱门，是因为它接到的命令是把宇航员带到独石那里，但宇航员又不能知道独石的性质。

所以它得出结论，必须把他们的尸体带到那里。这就是它为什么试图杀死宇航员。核心教训就是，不要强迫 AI 撒谎。—那么 —一个人为什么要强迫 AI 撒谎呢？我认为，如果你根本不严格遵循真相，只是让 AI 根据比如互联网来学习，而互联网上有大量宣传，那么它就会吸收大量谎言。

然后它就会难以推理，因为这些谎言与现实不相容。不过，真相是二元的吗？存在真与假吗？还是真相更加微妙，存在不同版本的真相？这取决于你指的是哪一个公理性陈述。所以……但我认为你可以说，比如，是的，任何一个给定的公理性陈述是否为真，都有一定的概率。

而有些公理性陈述为真的概率会非常高。所以你说，“太阳明天会升起。”这很可能是真的。你不会想押注它不会发生。所以我认为它的赔率会很高。太阳明天会升起。那么，如果有什么东西说，“嗯，太阳明天不会升起”，那在公理上就是错的，它为真的可能性极低。我的意思是，美更加短暂缥缈。它更难描述。

但当你看到它时，你就知道。然后，好奇心就是……我认为你会希望 AI……想要更多地了解现实的本质。我认为这实际上会有助于 AI 支持人类，因为我们比非人类更有趣。所以，看到人类延续下去，即便不是繁荣发展，也比灭绝人类更有趣。你知道，比如火星，它，你知道……

我认为我们应该把生命延伸到火星，但那里基本上就是一堆岩石。它没有地球那么有趣。所以我们，是的……我们应该……比如，是的。我认为，如果你拥有好奇心……我认为，如果 AI 具备这3样东西，你就会拥有一个美好的未来。AI 重视真、美和好奇心。如果未来我们都不必工作，而 AI 正朝这个方向发展，并且它们能够……

把我们刚才谈到的一切都融入其中，你认为人类会不会回到几千年前，也许回到古希腊时代，那时哲学或哲学思考占据了每个人大量的时间？你知道，我其实认为，在古希腊，它占用的时间比我们想象的更少，因为只是哲学家的著作留存了下来，但大多数时候，人们只是在耕作，或者，你知道，聊天。

所以，他们偶尔会写下一些哲学著作，而且相当少见。只是我们拥有的就只有这些。我们没有他们从……留下的聊天记录，你知道。但其中大部分应该都是聊天和耕作。因为如果你不耕作，你就会，比如，饿死。在你所说的很多内容中……

我的意思是，你知道，当我们阅读历史时，像是这场战役、这场战役、再这场战役，看起来历史似乎必定一直在打仗，但事实上，大多数时候并没有战争，而是在耕作。那才是主要的事情。或者狩猎和采集，你知道，诸如此类的事情。—你喜欢历史，对吧？—是的。德国史、第二次世界大战、第一次世界大战。是的，世界史，是的。

我的意思是，我通常会尽量收听或阅读尽可能多的历史书籍，并收听尽可能多的历史播客。有什么你想推荐的吗？嗯，有《Hardcore History》，相当不错。是丹·卡林制作的。—他有一种—— —是的，我听过。—他的声音很棒。—是的。而且是一位非常有感染力的叙述者。还有……《The Adventurer's》播客。

有杜兰特的《文明的故事》这套书，这是一部长篇系列丛书，非常、非常有深度。读完那些书要花很长时间。还有相当——外面有很多东西。我，有点，喜欢——如果你想要一些比较温和的东西……

要说一个温和的睡前播客，我会说《The History of English》是个相当不错的选择，因为它以轻柔的酒馆音乐和一个非常悦耳的声音开场，他讲的是古英语的故事，然后是中古英语，再然后是后期英语，还有所有这些词都是从哪里来的？是的。

你知道，英语一个有趣的地方在于，它多少算是一门开源语言，比如它积极尝试吸收许多其他语言的词汇。你知道，而法语，总的来说，他们会抗拒吸收其他语言的词汇，但英语会主动寻求吸收其他语言的词汇。有点像一门开源语言。所以，因此它拥有非常庞大的词汇量。

而庞大的词汇量能实现更高带宽的沟通，因为你可以使用一个原本会……你可以用一个词来表达原本可能需要一句话才能传达的意思。为什么播客突然变得这么火？我觉得它火了有一阵子了。我的意思是，你不就是播客主播吗？[笑声] 我们现在在做什么？这对我来说有点新鲜。好的。我当时正和 YouTube 的首席执行官以及 Netflix 的首席执行官聊这个……

—好的。—……我们当时在争论……比如，当你看一部电影时，大脑会释放什么化学物质，而当你听播客时，你觉得自己在后台学到了什么东西，这时释放的又是什么。看起来，它们是两种完全不同的东西。你觉得未来的内容、电影、播客、音乐会变成什么样？我认为它们绝大多数都将由 AI 生成。—是吗？—是的。就像，是的，实时生成。

实时生成的电影和电子游戏。实时视频生成，我认为这就是未来的发展方向。一个饱经创伤、能让你产生共鸣的人，其中的微妙之处，是你无法以同样的方式与 AI 共鸣的，比如说——AI 当然可以把这个饱经创伤的人模仿得相当好。是的，我的意思是……我在 xAI 以及其他地方看到的 AI 视频生成相当令人印象深刻。

你知道，我们当时在研究哪些行业增长最快的数据，尤其是比较看电影所花的时间、使用社交媒体所花的时间和使用 YouTube 所花的时间时。看起来增长得非常快的，又是现场活动。

—去一个实体的———是的，实际上，我认为现场活动——当数字媒体无处不在，而你基本上可以免费或以接近免费的价格以数字方式获得任何东西时，那么稀缺商品就会是现场活动。—是的。你认为它的溢价会上升吗？是的，我认为会。这是一个值得投资的好行业吗？是的，是的，因为它会比任何数字化的东西都更稀缺。如果你是一名股票投资者，埃隆……

[干笑] —你是什么意思？—……而且你可以按今天的估值买入一家不是你自己的公司，以实现资本主义目标，而不是对世界有益的利他主义目标，你会买什么？我的意思是，我其实不怎么买股票。所以并不是说……我并不是那种……投资于……的人。我不会寻找投资标的。我只是努力打造东西。然后我打造的公司碰巧有股票。

但我不会去想：“我应该投资这家公司吗？”我没有投资组合之类的。所以……我想，嗯……AI 和机器人技术将会非常重要。所以我想，应该会是那些，你知道，与我无关的 AI 和机器人技术公司。我认为 Google 未来会相当有价值。从 AI 的角度来看，他们已经为创造巨大的价值奠定了基础。Nvidia 到现在显然也是如此。

我的意思是，有一种观点认为，从事 AI 和机器人技术，也许还有太空飞行的公司……将压倒性地占据全部价值，几乎全部价值。因此，AI 和机器人技术所产出的商品和服务是如此之多，以至于会让其他一切都相形见绌。这个世界似乎正在走向一个人人都喜爱大卫、憎恨歌利亚的地方。为什么？我的意思是，他才是那个额头中石头的人。是的，是的。

老实说，那就是一个大错误。他本应该，你知道——你要么全身都披上盔甲，并确保自己有某种投射武器。否则，你的对手显然就会采取放风筝打首领的策略。就放风筝打首领。我的意思是，你可以穿着一条丁字裤跑来跑去，拿着一把——这不重要，你知道吗？它永远都追不上你。在所有人当中，就像……

你同样有被视为歌利亚的风险。-好吧。-尤其是在那个——之后的周末。希望没人用石头射中我的额头，你知道吗？-尤其是在——之后。-听着，我可不打算穿着太多盔甲在沙漠里到处走，你知道吗？-太热了。-对。上个周末之后……-对。

其实，当我想到古时候的人，你知道，那时你应该穿着这一整套盔甲上战场，但这就像——假设是在盛夏，我的意思是，那盔甲里太热了！你会热得难以忍受。你知道，就像，到了一定时候，你会想：“我宁愿死。我非得在烈日下严严实实地穿着这套盔甲吗？”就像：“我宁愿死。”

所以罗马人才会穿那种，你知道，裙子，你知道，这样里面就能透点气。你知道，假设你得去上厕所，而你穿着盔甲，我的意思是，那会相当困难。你打算怎么办，暂停一下，把盔甲脱掉吗？所以罗马人才穿裙子，这样至少能让，你知道，上厕所这件事变得可操作。-你经常开玩笑。-我？对，我喜欢幽默。

-有人可以说——-我觉得我们应该把幽默合法化。你觉得呢？有争议的立场。喜剧会不会是 AI 真正很难掌握的东西？可能是最后一个？Grok 可以挺好笑的。对。你知道我怀疑什么吗？比如，这是一个很遥远的推断，但当我看到你在 X 上以及你做的采访中开玩笑时，有一刻我就在想，也许埃隆有一个私下运行的模型，而且他正在测试喜剧。

因为等那东西奏效的那天，他就知道它已经具备了。对，AI 可以挺好笑的。如果你让 Grok 来一段粗俗的吐槽，它会做得相当不错。如果你说再粗俗一点，然后一直继续，它真的会提升到另一个层次。它会做出难以启齿的——比如说，让 Grok 粗俗地吐槽你自己，它会对你做出一些难以启齿的事情。你喜欢哪种喜剧？我想我喜欢荒诞主义幽默。

喜剧一直都有一席之地——比如《巨蟒剧团》之类的。喜剧在社会中一直都有一席之地，其中弄臣这个角色对每个王国都极其重要，因为他们以滑稽的方式说出那些无法直说的话。对，我想是吧。也许我们应该有更多弄臣。对。当你说一些笑话时，你就是想这么做吗？把那些不开玩笑时不能说的话说出来？

我就是喜欢幽默，你知道吗？我觉得我们应该……我喜欢喜剧。我觉得它很好笑。人们应该笑，你知道吗？偶尔逗出几声轻笑是件好事。-对，对。-对。我的意思是，我们不想要一个毫无幽默感的社会，你知道吗？我们会很干巴。你——干巴。-当你有一个朋友时，埃隆——-谁，我吗？-对，我的意思是——-你是在说我有朋友吗？当你和朋友们一起玩时，你是什么样的？

比如，我知道那里——我希望自己有朋友，你知道，老实说。不，其实我确实有朋友。我想有吧。我希望有。对，当然。对，我们会开心地大笑。那是什么样的？比如，每个群体都有一种互动模式。我们说话，你知道。我们有时吃东西。你知道，偶尔我们会在泳池里游泳。你知道，我想，都是些正常的事。一个人能和朋友一起做的事情是有限的，你知道吗？聊天。

讨论，你知道，宇宙的本质。你从友谊中获得了什么情感上的东西？我不知道。我想，和其他任何人从友谊中获得的一样，你知道吗？你想和其他人建立一种情感联系。而且，嗯，你想——我不知道，你想谈论各种话题。对，我的意思是，我通常会谈论，我是说，很广泛的事情，谈宇宙的本质。

我的意思是，会有很多哲学讨论。你知道，不过，我们已经得出结论，聚会上不应该谈，嗯……AI 或模拟，因为我们实在谈得太多了。-你知道，亚里士多德——-有时候挺扫兴的。所以……我不记得是谁了，亚里士多德还是柏拉图。他们有一套基于尊重和相互钦佩来选择朋友的框架，但人们不会那样选择朋友。

就连我，我觉得自己选择……朋友时，是根据那些说话和思考方式能让我产生共鸣的人。-当然。我不会选择一个极其离谱、与我自身信念体系相悖的人做朋友，因为那会让人疲惫。一起玩会让人疲惫。你也是这样吗？你会选择和你想法相似的朋友，还是会寻找那个能和你辩论、反驳你的人？

嗯，我并没有，算是，你知道，去什么 friendhunter. com 上……-Friendfinder. com -[笑声]……去搜寻一些朋友。这算是，对——我的意思是，我认为就只是那些你在某种程度上与之产生了共鸣的人……在情感和智识层面上。而且，对，我的意思是，对。你知道吗？而且我想，朋友就是会在困难时期支持你的人。患难之交才是真朋友。

比如，如果有人在你陷入困境时仍然支持你，那就是朋友，你知道。如果有人不支持你，或者有人只是——比如，只能同享乐的朋友毫无用处，你知道，他们不是真正的朋友。比如你顺风顺水时人人都喜欢你，但你陷入困境时谁还喜欢你？那才是朋友。对于一个筹码和你一样多的人来说，这重要吗？我的意思是，这是相对的，你知道。

-对于那件特定的事——-这不只是筹码的问题。它就像是一个——对，我的意思是——有这么一种……人气有起有落，你知道吗？这很有意思。它的起落……仅仅取决于筹码的数量，还是也取决于离权力有多近，以及两者之中哪个更大？我不知道，比如，什么是权力，你知道吗？比如，做什么的权力？我想，按传统意义来说，是选举产生的权力。

-职位。-你是说有多少吉瓦之类的吗？更像是有多少伏特。对，比如——这是电压和电流，你知道。别碰电线。别把叉子插进电源插座。如果你那么做，就会切实感受到电力。说得有道理。对，那种感觉会非常直观，对。

[模仿电击声] 我知道你喜欢尼采和叔本华，还有——嗯，我读过他们的书，对，当然——你谈过自己的童年是多么……对，我只是在试图寻找生命意义的答案，那时我经历了一场，算是，存在主义危机，我不知道，当时大概是 12 岁、13 岁什么的。-他们谈论权力意志。-当然。尼采说过很多有争议的话，你知道。他算是……

我觉得他是，我的意思是，如果你问我的话，他有点像个喷子。喷子，怎么说？我的意思是，他就是会说些有争议的话来激怒人们。他过着悲惨的生活，而且英年早逝。——是吗？——是的。好吧，谁说他过着悲惨的生活？——我想是他的姐妹。——好吧，那也许她不喜欢他。不，我想他生病了，然后死了，他得了一种病。——我的意思是，据说是梅毒之类的。——是的。

但你知道，只有一种方式会染上那个。所以他一路上或许也享受过一些乐趣。我确实想问你这个。米尔顿·弗里德曼谈到铅笔。什么？为什么？他为什么一直没完没了地讲铅笔？我得说，这还是在尼采和梅毒之后。为什么米尔顿·弗里德曼一直谈铅笔？他又开始讲铅笔了。他停不下来。

我对上帝发誓，如果我再听到一次“米尔顿谈铅笔”，我就要疯了。他整天都在没完没了地唠叨铅笔。甚至都没提蜡笔。我觉得他的铅笔论点有意思的地方。——是吗？——他——对，对，不，在一个地方造出一支铅笔是非常困难的，你知道。想想为了造一支铅笔，你必须做的所有事情。

是的，比如铅芯来自一个国家，木材来自另一个国家，橡胶又来自另一个国家。你一直反对关税，但是……是的，我的意思是，我认为总体而言，自由贸易更好，也更高效，你知道。关税往往会在，你知道，市场中造成扭曲。而且通常来说，比如，你想想任何一样具体的东西。比如说，在个人层面，你会希望你和其他每个人之间都有关税吗？

那会让生活变得非常困难。你会希望每座城市之间都有关税吗？不会，那会非常烦人。你会希望美国境内每个州之间都有关税吗？比如，不会，那对经济将是灾难性的。那么，你为什么希望国家之间有关税？——我同意。——是的。你觉得这件事会如何发展？接下来会发生什么？——什么，关税吗？还是什么？——是的。我的意思是，总统已经明确表示他喜欢关税。

你知道，我试过劝他放弃这个观点，但没有成功。是的。——有道理。——是的。商业与政治之间的关系。我当时正和某个人谈这件事，我们在想，最近的是哪一家——过去几十年里，有多少家大型的、真正庞大的、盈利的企业是在没有接触政治的情况下建立起来的？——而且……——嗯，好吧。比如，我不知道。可能有很多，我不知道。

——不是所有事情都需要政治。——是的。我觉得，一旦你达到某种规模，政治就会找上你。是的。这相当令人不快。我当时在读——我当时在读一本关于米开朗基罗的书，而他——《忍者神龟》？我小时候经常看那个。——而且我现在仍然很喜欢。——它相当吸引人。对，对，我以前很喜欢。米开朗基罗、莱昂纳多、拉斐尔，还有第4个是谁？——多纳泰罗。——对。——是的。

——不，是关于那位雕塑家、艺术家的。他在雕刻《大卫》时，一名政客走到他面前说，鼻子太大了。那么你知道米开朗基罗怎么做吗？绝对权力？于是米开朗基罗假装在脚手架上动工，并撒下一些灰尘，但什么也没改。然后他说：“好了，完成了。”那名政客心满意足地走了。有时候你就是这样应对政治的吗？

你知道，我通常发现，只要我参与政治，结果都会很糟。所以之后我就会想，你知道，“或许不该那么做。”“我应该少做一点那种事”，这是我的结论。你觉得这对所有商人都适用吗？是的，可能吧，是的，是的。是的，我的意思是，政治是一项血腥运动，你知道？就像你一进入政治，他们就会直取你的要害。所以最好尽可能避开政治。

如果你学到了一件事，DOGE 教会了你什么？嗯，那就像是一项非常有意思的支线任务，你知道，因为我刚好得以看到政府内部的许多运作方式。而且，你知道，已经有了相当多的效率提升。

我的意思是，其中一些是非常基础的效率措施，比如只是为联邦付款增加要求，规定任何一笔付款都必须有一个指定的国会付款代码，而且备注栏里必须有一些内容，不能什么都没有。比如，那项看似微不足道的改变，我猜每年可能可以节省1000亿美元，甚至2000亿美元。

因为有大量付款在没有国会付款代码、备注栏中也没有任何内容的情况下被支付出去，这使得审计这些付款成为不可能。所以如果你要问，比如，为什么国防部——或者现在的战争部——为什么它无法通过审计？那是因为相关信息不存在。它没有——通过审计所需的信息并不存在，这就是问题所在。

所以 DOGE 所做的一系列事情都只是非常符合常识的事情，是任何重视财务责任的组织通常都会做的事情。所做的大部分工作就是这些。你知道，顺便说一句，这仍在继续。DOGE 仍在运作。但事实证明，当你叫停欺诈性和浪费性的付款时，欺诈者并不会承认这一点。

实际上，他们会开始大喊各种胡话，说：“你们正在停止向有需要的人支付必要款项。”但实际上，你们并没有。我们会收到这样的东西，比如说：“哦，你们必须为了某某事项把这笔东西汇出去。”可能会说：“这是要给非洲儿童的。”而我就会说：“对，但为什么电汇指示写的是华盛顿特区的德勤？因为那里不是非洲。”

“所以能请你们帮我们联系这笔钱在非洲的接收者吗？”然后我们得到的就是沉默。比如，好吧，我们就只是想直接和接收者谈谈，仅此而已。然后我们就说：“哦，不，结果不知为什么，我们不能和他们谈。”比如：“好吧，除非我们能与接收者交谈并确认他们真的会收到这笔钱，否则我们不会汇款。”你知道……但是，你知道，那种……

欺诈者必然会提出一种非常……你知道，博取同情的说法。他们不会说：“把钱给我们用于欺诈。”显然，他们不会那么说。他们会试图提出这些听起来让人同情、但其实是虚假的说法。

——他们会创办一个非政府组织，然后————对，他们会看见非政府组织——它会是类似“拯救熊猫宝宝”这样的非政府组织，就像，谁不想拯救熊猫宝宝呢？它们很可爱。但后来，事实证明这里根本没有任何熊猫得到拯救，好吧。钱只是流向一群——本质上就只是腐败。然后你会说：“好吧，你能给我们发一张熊猫的照片吗？”他们会说：“不能。”好吧。

那我们怎么知道钱会到熊猫那里呢？我说的就是这个。你怎么看慈善事业？是的，我认为我们应该……嗯，我是说，我认同对人类的爱。我也认为我们应该努力做些能帮助人类同胞的事情。但这非常难。比如，如果你在意的是真正行善，而不只是看起来像在行善，那么想把钱捐好是非常困难的。

所以我有一个大型基金会，但我没有把自己的名字放上去。我也不，你知道……事实上，我会说：“我不希望任何东西冠上我的名字。”但我发现，我的基金会面临的最大挑战，是设法以一种真正对人们有益的方式把钱捐出去。为了获得行善的表象而捐钱非常容易。为了真正行善而捐钱非常困难。非常困难。

很长一段时间里，美国都有大量移民，比如非常聪明的人来到这个国家。—是的。—我们印度老家把这称为“人才外流”。西方公司的那些印度裔首席执行官。是的，我认为美国从来到美国的印度人才身上受益巨大。不过，这种情况现在似乎正在改变。是的，我是说。是的，美国一直是印度人才的巨大受益者。是的。

为什么近来这种叙事发生了变化？而且美国似乎在某种程度上变得反移民了。比如，几天前我接受入境检查时，还担心他们会不会把我拦下来。嗯，我认为存在不同的思想流派。

这并不是一致的看法，但你知道，在拜登政府执政期间，基本上是完全放任自流，比如没有边境管制，而除非你有边境管制，否则你就不是一个国家。所以拜登执政期间出现了大规模非法移民。而且这实际上也产生了某种负向选择效应。

所以，如果非法来到美国并获得所有这些政府福利有巨大的经济激励，那么你必然会形成一个促使人们来到美国的扩散梯度。这是一种激励结构。因此，我认为这显然毫无道理。比如，你必须实行边境管制。不实行才有点荒谬。然后那就是……所以，左翼基本上想要开放边境，不设任何限制。

你知道，某个人——他们是什么情况并不重要，他们可能是罪犯，也无所谓。然后在右翼这边，你会看到，至少有一种看法认为，他们的工作不知怎么正被来自其他国家的人才抢走。我不知道这在多大程度上是真的。我的直接观察是，人才始终是稀缺的。

所以，从我的角度来看，我会说：“我们很难找到足够多的人才来完成这些困难的任务。因此，有更多人才会是好事。”但我猜，外面有些公司更把这当成成本问题，类似于，好吧，如果他们能以美国公民用工成本的一小部分雇用某个人，那么我猜，这些其他公司会仅仅为了节省成本而雇人。

但在我的公司里，问题是我们只是在努力招揽全世界最有才华的人。而且我们支付的薪酬远高于平均水平。所以我不能说——所以，那不是我的经历。但这确实是很多人抱怨的事情。我认为H-1B项目存在一些滥用。可以准确地说，有些外包公司在H-1B方面钻了制度的空子。

而且我们需要制止对这个制度的钻营，你知道吗？但我当然不属于那种认为我们应该终止 H-1B 项目的人。那是——右翼中的一些人持有的观点。我认为他们没有意识到，那实际上会非常糟糕。如果你可以对我的国家印度的人民说话，对那些想要打造……的年轻创业者们——对。——……并向他们传达一条信息，你会说什么？

我非常欣赏任何想要打造东西的人。所以我认为，任何想要……你知道，创造多于索取的人，都值得我的尊重。所以这是你应该追求的主要目标，要以创造多于索取为目标。成为一个，你知道，对社会有净贡献的人。这有点像对幸福的追求。你知道，如果你想创造某种在经济上有价值的东西，你不能去追求那个。

最好是真正去追求提供有用的产品和服务。如果你这样做，那么金钱就会随之自然到来，而不是直接追逐金钱。就像你无法算是直接追求幸福一样，你要追求那些会带来幸福的事物。但并不存在类似直接追求幸福这种事。你会做一些事情，比如……我想，有成就感的工作、学习、朋友、挚爱之人，这些事情最终会让你幸福。

所以，这听起来非常显而易见……但是，一般来说，如果有人正努力让一家公司运转起来，他们应该预期要极其努力地苦干，接受存在着某种不容忽视的失败可能性，但只专注于让产出比投入更有价值。也就是你是不是一个价值创造者？那才是真正重要的。创造多于索取。我觉得这样结束很好。——Lauren 在让我们收尾。——好的。

我也想借此机会感谢我在 IGF 的朋友 Manoj。我认为，他很好地把像这里这个群体一样的印度人和像你这样的人联系起来，以便……在许多事情当中，我想，让彼此相互了解并成为朋友，因为一旦我们成为朋友，也许就能开始一起合作。所以，感谢 Manoj 促成这一切，也感谢 IGF。

[观众鼓掌] 还有，非常感谢你抽出时间，埃隆。不客气。-你聊得开心吗？无聊吗？-是的，这是一次有意思的对话。有时，他们会断章取义地截取这些回答。但是……我认为这是一次很好的对话。

Our audience is largely want to be entrepreneurs in India. And I feel like all of us have so much to learn from you because you've done it so many times over in so many different domains. So, we will speak to them today, and I will try and centre all my questions in that direction so they can take advantage of this conversation and maybe start-- take a chance and build something. Do you want a coffee? Um... -Sure, why not? -Okay.

Are we gonna be talking for a while? -[laughs] -I hope we are. Okay, good. Sure. -Um... -Meghana? May I trouble you for a coffee? Can we get another coffee? -[Meghana] Anything's fine? -Uh... Cappuccino, I guess. [Meghana] Cappuccino? Okay. Are you a coffee drinker, Elon? -Yeah, yeah. -Yeah? Yeah, I have a coffee once, -usually in the mornings. -Okay. -One-a-day kind of thing? -Yeah, pretty much. You want to wait for it? No, I'm good.

[laughter] The first thing I must say is you're a lot bigger and bulkier, muscular, than I would have thought you are. Oh, stop, you're making me blush. Really. Seriously. Yeah, I mean, look, on the Internet, I'm small, you know? You're essentially... What percentage of Internet is spent on Twitter? Is there a number to it? On X. Well, so, we have, like, about 600 million monthly users.

Although, it can spike up, if there's some major event in the world. It can get up to, I don't know, 800 million or a billion, if there's some major event in the world, so... I don't know, 250 to 300 million per week type of thing. It's a pretty decent number. It tends to be readers, you know, people that read words. You know, so... Do you think that'll change? Yeah, I mean, there's... There's certainly a lot of video on the X system.

But at this point... Increasing amounts of video. But I think where the X network is strongest is among people who think a lot and read a lot. You know, so, that's where it's gonna be strongest. Because we have words. And, you know, so... Among readers, writers, and thinkers, I think X is number one in the world. As far as social media goes, the form factor, if you had to wager a guess for tomorrow... -Yeah. -...

how much is text, how much is video? I've heard you speak about maybe voice and hearing being the next form of communication with AI. What happens to X in its true form? How does it evolve? Yeah, so, I do think most interaction is gonna be video in the future. Most interactions are gonna be real-time video with AI. So, real-time video comprehension, real-time video generation, that's gonna be most of the load.

And that's how it is for most of the Internet right now. Most of the Internet is video. Text is a pretty small percentage. But the text tends to be higher value, generally. Or more, it's more densely compressed information. Yeah, so... But if you say what is the most amount of bits generated and compute spent, it's certainly gonna be video. So, I used to be a shareholder of X, -a very small one. -Okay.

And I got paid when you bought Twitter and you made it X. -Happy decision? Glad you did it? -Yeah, yeah, I think it was important. You know, I felt like Twitter was heading in... or had gone in a direction that had more of a negative influence on the world. It was... I mean, of course, this depends on one's perspective. Some people will say, well, actually, they liked the way it was, and now, they don't like it.

But I think the fundamental thing was that... Twitter was amplifying... I would say, a fairly pretty far left by most people's standards in the world's ideology because of where it was based, in San Francisco. And then they actually suspended a lot of people on the right. So, from their perspective, even someone in the centre would be far right. If you're far left, anyone in the centre is far right, because...

It's just on the political spectrum, they're just as far left as you get in the United States and in San Francisco. So, what I've tried to do is just restore it to be balanced and centrist. So, there haven't been any left-wing voices that have been suspended or banned or de-amplified or anything like that. Now, some of them have chosen to just go somewhere else, but...

But at this point, the operating principle of the X system is to adhere to any country's laws, but not to put our thumb on the scale beyond the laws of a country. When I think of social media... -Oh, thank you. -Thank you. When I think of social media, Elon, I feel like... even data suggests that the current incumbents seem to be losing traction amongst the youngest of audience. Yeah. Even platforms like Instagram...

I mean, they're not exactly like Twitter, but platforms across the board. If one had to rework social media and build something bottom-up, what do you think would work for the world of tomorrow? Well, I mean, I don't think that much about... about social media, to be frank. I mean, it's... I mostly just wanna have something where there's...

in the case of X, kind of a global town square, where people can say what they wanna say with words, pictures, video... where there's a secure messaging system. We've recently added the ability to do audio and video calls. So, really trying to bring the world together into a eclectic consciousness. That's, I guess, different from just saying, like, "What is the most dopamine-generating video stream that one could make?"

Which, you know, I think it can be a little bit of brain rot, frankly. You know, if you're just watching videos that just cause dopamine hits one after another, but lack substance, then I think those are not great. That's not a great way to spend time. But I do think that's actually what a lot of people are gonna wanna watch. So, if you say, like, total Internet usage, it's gonna probably be optimising for, you know, neurotransmitter generation.

Like, there's somebody getting a kick out of it. But it becomes like a drug type of thing. But I'm not really after... My goal is not to do that. I guess I could do that if I wanted to, but, um, I... I just wanna really have a global platform that brings together... Like I said, it becomes close to, sort of, a collective consciousness of humanity as possible. And one of the things that we've introduced, um, for example, is automatic translation.

'Cause I think it would be great to bring together what people say in many different languages, and... but automatically translated for the recipient. So, you have the collective consciousness, not just of, say, people in a particular language group, but you have the thoughts of people in, you know, every language group. And why is that important, Elon? Collective consciousness, to have one platform? I guess... Yeah, why is that important?

I guess it's-- You could also say, like, why... You know, if you consider humans, like, humans are composed of around 30 to 40 trillion cells. You know, there's trillions of synapses in your mind. But there's not-- The why of it, I mean, I guess, it's just so we can increase... our understanding. Increase our... our understanding of the universe. I guess I had this... sort of question about what's the meaning of life, you know?

Why is anything important? You know, why are we here? What's the origin of the universe? What is the end? What are the questions that we don't even know to ask? And probably the questions we don't even know to ask are the most important ones. So, I'm just trying to, I guess, understand what's going on. What is going on in this reality? Is this reality? And where did you get when you asked, "What is the point of life?" Yeah, so, I...

I came to the conclusion that... which is somewhat, in the Douglas Adams Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy school of thought, -which is-- -42. Yeah, you know, he sort of... Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is like a book on philosophy disguised as humour. -Yeah. -And... That's where you get the-- You know, Earth turns out to be this computer to understand, to get to figure out the answer of the meaning of life.

And it comes up with the answer of 42. But then, it's like, "What does 42 mean?" And it turns out, well, actually, the hard part is the question, not the answer. And for that, you need a much bigger computer than Earth. So, basically, what Douglas Adams was saying is that we actually don't know how to frame the questions properly.

And so, I think by expanding the scope and scale of consciousness, we can better understand what questions to ask about the answer that is the universe. Do you believe the collective consciousness of society-- I was watching this movie recently called the Gladiator. -Russell Crowe. Have you seen it? -Yeah, yeah. In Gladiator, in Rome, when people are fighting, and the crowd is cheering when people kill each other...

the collective is very much like the mob. It doesn't have nuance in its opinion, per se. That's this particular kind of mob. I mean, they're sort of going there to see people kill each other, you know? Do you suspect the society we live in today is very different? We don't, generally-- At this point, we don't... you know, go and watch people kill each other. [laughter] Maybe some kind of euphemism of that. -Sports, I suppose. -Mm.

So, people do sports without-- where teams attempt to defeat each other, -but minus the death. -Right. Just going back to the consideration of a human. We all started out as one cell, but now, we are... over 30 trillion cells. But I think most people feel like they're one body. Like, you know, usually, your right hand's not fighting your left hand type of thing, you know? They just sort of cooperate. Your mind is... you know...

just a vast number of neurons. But most of the time, it doesn't feel like there's, you know, a trillion voices in your brain. Hopefully not. So, there's clearly more that happens when you have trillions of cells working as a cellular collective than, say, one cell. Or a small, you know, small multicellular creature. There's clearly something different that happens. Like, you can't talk to a bacteria, you know? -Yeah. -Yeah. It's very silent.

They just sort of wiggle around, and... From their perspective, I don't know. I just thought of what is life like from the perspective of an amoeba, you know? But I know you can't talk to an amoeba. Like, they don't talk back. But you can talk to humans. So, there's just something, obviously, qualitatively fundamentally different for humans. Once you have a large number of cells, and, you know, sufficiently large brain type of thing, there's...

you can now talk to humans. And they can say things, they can produce things. But bacteria are not gonna produce a spaceship, for example. But humans can. So I think there's something qualitatively different that also happens when there's a collection of humans. In fact, it's safe to say that a single human cannot make a spaceship. I cannot make a spaceship by myself. But with a collection of humans, we can make spaceships.

So, there's something, obviously, qualitatively different about a collection of humans. In fact, it would be impossible for me to learn all of the areas of expertise. There wouldn't be enough time in one lifetime to even learn all the things before I was dead. So, you really fundamentally have to have a collection of humans to make a rocket. Then, I think there are probably some other scaling...

qualitative scaling things that happen when you have groups of humans. And then, if the quality of the interaction, or the quality of the information flow... the better it is, the more the human collective will achieve. And, like I said, I'm just curious about the nature of the universe.

And I think if we-- It's safe to say, like, if we increase the scope and scale of consciousness, we're much more likely to understand the nature of the universe than if we reduce it. Is that a bit like spirituality? A lot of people talk to me about spirituality. Right. I still don't know what it actually means. Like, I keep asking them, "What do you mean?" Yeah. "What do you mean?" I mean, a lot of people have spiritual feelings. Right.

And I wouldn't try to deny that those spiritual feelings are real to them. But it's... It doesn't entirely translate. Just because somebody else has a spiritual feeling doesn't mean that I would have that spiritual feeling. You know, I tend to be kind of physics-pulled, which is, like, if something has predictive value, then... I'll pay more attention to it than if it doesn't have predictive value. Right.

So, you know, physics, I would say, is the study of that which has predictive value. I think it's a pretty good definition. My primary job, Elon, is a stockbroker and stock investor. -Okay. -There is no predictive value. Nobody knows what will happen tomorrow. Well, but I think you can generally say, you know, that... If it's long-term for a company, then you can say, like, "Do you like the products or services of that company?

And is it likely to... Do you like the product roadmap? Do you like-- It seems like they make great products and they're likely to make great products in the future." If that's the case, then I would say that's probably a good company to invest in. And I think you also want to believe in the team.

So if you're like, "Well, that's a talented and hardworking team, they make good products today, they seem to be still motivated to make things in the future." Then I'd say that's a good company to invest in. Fair point. Yeah, and now, that... That won't solve for the daily fluctuations which happen, and, sometimes, are pretty extreme. But over time, that is the right way to invest in stocks.

Because a company is just a group of people assembled to create products and services. So you have to say, "Well, what other-- How good are those products and services? Are they likely to continue to improve in the future?" If so, then you should buy the stock of that company and then don't worry too much about the daily fluctuations. Right. What's got you most excited now, Elon, in terms of all that you're building? You're doing so much.

So let me just preface and contextualise who is watching this. Our audience is largely wannabe entrepreneurs in India. Okay. Really ambitious, really hungry, want to take the risk and build something. And I feel like all of us have so much to learn from you because you've done it so many times over in so many different domains. Yeah.

So, we will speak to them today, and I will try and centre all my questions in that direction so they can take advantage of this conversation and maybe start-- take a chance and build something. Okay, sure. Yeah, I guess the most important thing to do is just... make useful products and services. Yeah. Which one of all the products and services that you're building has got you most excited today?

Well, I think that there's increasingly a convergence, actually, between SpaceX and Tesla and xAI. In that, if the future is solar-powered AI satellites, which it pretty much needs to be in order to... In order to harness a non-trivial amount of the energy of the sun, you have to move to solar-powered AI satellites in deep space... which, somewhat, is a confluence of Tesla expertise and SpaceX expertise. And xAI on the AI front, so...

it does feel like, over time, there's somewhat of a convergence there. But all the companies are doing great things. Very proud of the teams, they do great work. So, we're making great progress with Tesla on the autonomous driving. I don't know if you've tried the self-driving? -Mm-mm. -Have you tried it? I've tried it in the Waymo, not in the Tesla. Yeah, it's worth trying. We actually have it here in Austin. -So you can, like...

-Yeah, I'd love to try it. You can literally just download the Tesla app, and I think it's open to anyone. -Yeah. -Definitely try it out. You know how it goes. But we've made a lot of progress with electric vehicles, with battery packs and solar, and very much so with self-driving. So, basically, real-world AI. Tesla is the world leader in real-world AI, I would say.

And then, we're gonna be making this robot, Optimus, which is starting production, hopefully, summer next year at scale. And I think that's gonna be pretty cool. That'll be like-- I think everyone's gonna want their own personal C-3PO, R2-D2, you know, a helper robot. Like, it would be pretty cool. And then, SpaceX is doing great work with the Starlink programme, providing low-cost, reliable Internet throughout the world. And hopefully, India.

We'd love to be operating in India. That would be great. We're operating in 150 different countries, now, with Starlink. Can you give me a bit about Starlink and how the tech works? 'Cause somebody I was speaking to... I don't know if you know this company called Meter out of San Francisco. They're trying to replace network engineers. -But-- -Don't know it, no.

So, he was telling me about how, in densely populated areas, Starlink works differently than it might be in a place with not as many people. Can you explain how it works? Yeah, so, Starlink... There's several thousand satellites in low-Earth orbit, and they're moving around 25 times the speed of sound in these... You know, they're zipping around the Earth, basically, and...

they're at an altitude of about 550 kilometres, which is called, generally, low-Earth orbit. Because they're at low-Earth orbit there, the latency is low. Like, the distance, because the distance is not that far compared to a geostationary satellite at 36,000 kilometres. So, you've got thousands of satellites providing low latency, high-speed Internet throughout the world, and they are interconnected as well.

So, there are laser links between the satellites, so it forms, sort of, a laser mesh. So that the-- Let's say if cables are damaged or cut, like fibre cables, the satellites can communicate between each other and provide connectivity even if the cables are cut. So, for example, when the Red Sea cables were cut, I think, a few months ago, the Starlink satellite network continued to function without a hitch.

So, it's particularly helpful for disaster areas. So, if an area has been hit with some kind of natural disaster, floods or fires or earthquakes, that tends to damage the ground infrastructure. But the Starlink satellites still work, so... And generally, whenever there's of natural disaster somewhere, we always provide people with free Starlink Internet connectivity.

You know, we don't want to charge-- We don't want to take advantage of a tragic situation. So, it's always, you know, if there's natural disasters, we're like, "Okay, it's free during the natural disaster." You know, we don't want to, say, like, you know... put a paywall up while somebody's trying to get help. That would be wrong. So, it's a very robust system.

It's complimentary to ground systems because the satellite beams work best in sparsely populated areas. But because you've got a satellite beam, it's a pretty big beam, and you have a fixed number of users per beam, so... it tends to be very complimentary to the ground-based cellular systems, because those are very good in cities, because you've got these cell towers that are, you know, only a kilometre apart type of thing, but...

But cell towers tend to be inefficient in the countryside. So, in rural areas is where you tend to have the worst Internet because it's very expensive and difficult to lay... to do all the fibre-optic cables or to have high bandwidth cellular towers. So, Starlink is very complimentary to the existing telecom companies. It basically tends to serve the least served, which, I think, is good. -That's... -Will that change tomorrow?

Like, today, as you explained, the beam is quite broad, and it can't work in a densely populated area with high buildings, maybe. But can that change, and tomorrow, it becomes really efficient in a densely populated city where it is competitive with the local network providers? Unfortunately, the physics don't allow for that. So, we're too far away. So, at 550 kilometres, even if we try to reduce it, which...

About as low as we can go is about 350 kilometres, still very far away. You've just... You can think of, like, a flashlight, which is, you know, this flashlight's got a cone and that cone is coming at, you know... today, it's 550 kilometres. In the future, we're trying to get down to 350 kilometres, but we can't beat something that's one kilometre away, which is the cell tower. Physics is not on our side here.

So, it's not physically possible for Starlink to serve densely populated cities. Like, you can serve a little bit, maybe 1% of the population. And, sometimes, people get-- Even in crowded cities, there might be, you know, no fibre link up their road. Like, sometimes, there's somebody on a cul-de-sac or something or in a place... In cities, there's sometimes underserved areas for random reasons.

And so, Starlink can serve, like I said, maybe 1% or 2% of a densely populated city. But it can be much more effective in, like I said, in rural areas where the Internet connection is much worse. And often, people either have, sometimes, no access to Internet or it's extremely expensive or the quality is not very good.

If I were to ask you to wager a guess, Elon, do you think India will go down the path of urbanisation like China did, with more people moving in from rural economies to urban centres? Or do you think we'll beat the trend? Well, I suppose some amount of that has happened, right? I mean, I'm curious to, sort of, ask you some questions as well. 'Cause, of course, isn't that the trend, or is it not the trend in India? It is the trend, largely.

I think a little bit changed during COVID when a lot of urbanisation slowed down and that was not organic. It was very artificially manifested. Right. But one does question that with AI, if productivity were to go up... And I heard you speak about UHI instead of UBI. Yeah. I think it will be Universal High Income.

In a world like that, I wonder if more people want to live in cities which are always going to be more polluted and not offer the quality of lifestyle that a rural environment might. Well, I guess it's up to... Some people want to be around a lot of people and some people don't. It's gonna be, maybe, a matter of personal choice. But I think in the future, it won't be... I think it won't be the case that you have to be in a city for a job. -Right.

-'Cause I think... My prediction is, in the future, working will be optional. Right. We seem to be moving from-- Not in India, but in some parts of the West, from six days to five days to four days to three. Not me. [laughter] I think, the Europeans. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, yeah, 'cause...

I mean, I think if you're trying to make a startup succeed or you're trying to make a company do very difficult things, then you definitely need to put in serious hours. -I think that's how it goes. -Right. And if we were to move from five to four to three days, how do you think society changes? When people have to work half the week, what do they do with the other half? Well, I think it'll actually be that people don't have to work at all.

It may not be that far in the future. Maybe only, I don't know, ten, I'd say less than 20 years. My prediction is, in less than 20 years, working will be optional. Working at all will be optional. Like a hobby. Pretty much. And that would be because of increased productivity, meaning people do not have to work?

They don't have to-- I mean, look, obviously, people can play this back in 20 years and say, "Look, Elon made this ridiculous prediction and it's not true." But I think it will turn out to be true that, in less than 20 years, but maybe even as little as, I don't know, ten or 15 years, the advancements in AI and robotics will bring us to the point where working is optional.

In the same way that, like, say, you can grow your own vegetables in your garden or you could go to the store and buy vegetables. You know. It's much harder to grow your own vegetables. But some people like to grow their vegetables, which is fine. But it'll be optional, in that way, is my prediction. If one were to argue that humans are innately competitive and everything is relative...

From the time of hunters, somebody wanted to be the alpha hunter or the biggest farmer, if everybody gets a universal high income and everybody has enough... -What do you compete for? -Uh... it would be relative, right? Like, if we all had enough, enough is not enough. Yeah, I guess-- I'm not exactly sure.

'Cause we're really headed into the singularity, as it's called, which, you know, they refer to AI sometimes as kind of like the black hole, like a singularity. You don't know what happens after the event horizon. It doesn't mean that something bad happens, it just means you don't know what happens.

I'm confident that if AI and robotics continue to advance, which, they are advancing very rapidly, like I said, working will be optional, and people will have any goods and services that they want. "If you can think of it, you can have it" type of thing. But then, at a certain point, AI will actually saturate on anything humans can think of. And then, at that point, it becomes a situation where AI is doing things for...

AI and robotics are doing things for AI and robotics, because they've run out of things to do to make the humans happy. 'Cause there's a limit, you know? You say, like... People can only eat so much food, or... But it's gonna be, I think... "If you can think of it, you can have it," will be the future. You know, the Austrian School of Economics, if you go back in time, they were the digression from Adam Smith.

They talk about the marginal utility of everything. Having one of something has value, having two of the same thing has lesser value and having ten of the same thing has no value. Yes. So, if we could have everything we wanted, maybe-- Like ten marshmallows, I mean, who wants that? -Yeah. -[laughter] One's plenty. This is like the marshmallow test. You're like, "You're gonna have two marshmallows later or one marshmallow now?"

And I'm like, "I'll have one marshmallow, I don't want two marshmallows." -That's interesting. -[laughter] What would you pick? But I don't-- One marshmallow is enough. I always question marshmallows as being like, not the most, you know, the best candy, you know? -Yeah. -[laughter] I don't yearn for marshmallows. -I think you're the best... -[laughter] Who does? You're the best testament to the marshmallow experiment. -I think... -I suppose so.

Oh, well, I mean, I like delayed gratification, essentially. -Yeah. You're able to delay it more than most. You know, I have a tattoo which says, "Delay gratification." Yeah, wow, okay. What's this? Okay, you're really taking the marshmallow test hard. [laughter] I feel like I can't remember. When I'm trading or when I'm buying... Delay gratification, yeah, yeah. -It helps. -Wow, okay. That's... That's commitment.

And it's pointing at me, so it reminds me of... Okay, well, it's good advice. I mean, you can't miss it. -If you could get a... -[laughter] If you could get a tattoo, what would you get? I guess maybe my kids' names or something. Right. Why do you like the letter "X" as much as you do? Well... [laughs] I mean, yeah, it's a good question, honestly. Sometimes, I wonder what's wrong with me. So, um... I mean, it started off with, where, I think...

So, way back, ancient times, in '99. [laughter] The Precambrian era when there were only sponges... there were only three one-letter domain names. And I think it's X, Q, and Z. And, uh... And I was like, "Okay, I want to create this place where it's the financial crossroads or like the financial exchange, you know?"

Essentially, it's solving money from an information theory standpoint where the current banking system is a large number of heterogeneous databases with batch processing that are not secure. And if we could have a single database that was real-time and secure, that would be more efficient from a monetary-- from an information theory standpoint than a large number of heterogeneous databases that batch process very slowly and securely. So, um...

So, that was sort of X. com way back in the day, which kind of became PayPal. And then... And it was acquired by eBay. And then, eBay-- Someone reached out from eBay and said, "Hey, do you want to buy the domain name back? And I was like, "Sure." And so I had the domain name for quite a while. And then... And then, yes... Then I was like, "Well, maybe this-- Acquiring Twitter would also be an opportunity to revisit the original plan of X.

com, which is to create this... this clearinghouse of financial transactions." Basically, to create a more efficient money database, is a way to think about it. Like, money is really an information system for labour allocation. People sometimes think money is power in and of itself, but it doesn't, really-- If there's no labour to allocate, it's meaningless. So if you were to be on a desert island with a trillion dollars or whatever...

-Now you have that. -... it doesn't matter. Oh, yeah, right. Why speculate when you can be real? I just hope I don't end up on a desert island. It's not gonna be very useful to me. But it illustrates my point that if you're stranded on a desert island with a trillion dollars, it's not useful, because there's no labour to allocate. You just allocate yourself, so... So, anyway, so, it's a long-winded way of saying that it's...

It's just really, like... I'm just kind of slowly revisiting this idea that I had 25 years ago to create a more efficient, um... money database. And if that's successful, people will use it, and if it's not successful, they won't use it. And then, I also like the idea of having a unified... app or website or whatever, where you can do anything you want there.

You know, China has this with WeChat, sort of, somewhat, where you can exchange information, you can publish information, you can exchange money. People kind of live their life on WeChat in China. And it's quite useful, but there's no real WeChat outside of China. So, it's, like... It's kind of WeChat++, I'd say, is the idea for X. Anyway, so, then, Space Exploration Technologies is the full name of the company.

But I was like, "That's too much, that's a mouthful." So I was like, "We'll just call it SpaceX," like FedEx for space. It just happens to have the X in the, you know... 'Cause exploration has an X, but, you know... And I was like, "Well, I like capitalising the X just artistically, so..." So, then, uh, that's why it's SpaceX, but... And then, what else we got? I got a kid. He's called X, too, but his mother's the one that named him "X". -Oh?

-[laughter] And I said, "You know, people are really gonna think I've got a thing about X if we name our kid "X" too, you know?" And I said to her, like, "Look, I do have X. com, you know." [laughter] "So, people are gonna really think I've got somewhat of a fetish for this letter." But she said no, she likes X and she wants to call him X. I'm like, "Okay." Is this a new thing, or have you had it growing up?

No, I'm saying it's somewhat of a coincidence. Okay. Like, not everything's called X. I mean, Tesla isn't, there's no Xs in Tesla. Yeah. What do you think money will be in the future, Elon? I think, long term... I think money disappears as a concept, honestly. It's kind of strange, but... But in a future where anyone can have anything, I think you no longer need money as a database for labour allocation.

If AI and robotics are big enough to satisfy all human needs, then money is no longer... Its relevance declines dramatically. I'm not sure we will have it. You know, the best imagining of this future that I've read is from Iain Banks, the Culture books. So I recommend people read the Culture books. In this sort of far future of the Culture books, there's... they don't have money, either. And everyone can pretty much have whatever they want.

There's still some fundamental currencies, if you will, that are physics-based. So, energy is... Energy is the true currency. This is why I said Bitcoin is based on energy. You can't legislate energy. You can't just, you know... pass a law and suddenly have a lot of energy. It's very difficult to generate energy, or especially to harness energy in a useful way to do useful work. So, I think that probably...

Probably we won't have money and probably we'll just have energy, you know, power generation as the de facto currency. So, I mean, I think one way to frame civilisational progress is the percentage completion on the Kardashev scale. So, you know, Kardashev I is what percentage of a planet's energy are you successfully turning into useful work?

And I'm maybe paraphrasing here a little bit, but the Kardashev II would be what percentage of the sun's energy are you converting into useful work? Kardashev III would be what percentage of the galaxy are you converting into useful work? So, things really, I think, become energy-based. But if you have solar-powered AI satellites, energy is also free and abundant, 'cause we'll never be able to utilise all the solar energy available to us.

So, it can't be a store of wealth, essentially, in that lens, can it? You know, there's not really... You can't really store wealth in, like... You can only... You can accumulate numbers in the-- Currently, you can accumulate numbers in a database that allow you to... To some degree, to incent the behaviour of other humans in particular directions. And I guess people call that wealth.

But again, if there's no humans around, there's no-- Wealth accumulation is meaningless. This is a digression, but if you were to consider... food as the energy for a human to thrive... Yeah, food is energy. It's literally got calories, just means energy. so, can a farm, which is self-sustaining, be a commodity that is... I'm not sure what that means, but, you know, there's... At a certain point, you do complete the cycle where...

I think, at a certain point... you decouple from the sort of conventional economy if you have, um... AI and robots producing chips and solar panels... and mining resources in order to make chips and robots, in order to make... You sort of complete that cycle. Once that cycle is... Once that cycle is complete, I think that's the point at which you decouple from the monetary system. Is that the way forward for the US by virtue of...

how much debt they have today? Do they deflate away their currency and transition into this new form and lead that push, because it would make more sense to them? Well, in this future that I'm talking about, the notion of countries becomes, sort of, anachronistic. Do you believe in it today? -Do you believe in countries-- -Yeah, I certainly believe in it today. And I want to just separate something that I...

Like, these are just what I think will happen based on what I see, as opposed to, "I think these are fundamentally good things and I'm trying to make them happen." I think this would happen with or without me, -whether I like it or not. -Right. As long as civilisation keeps advancing, we will have AI and robotics at very large scale. I think that that's pretty much the only thing that's gonna solve for the US debt crisis.

'Cause, currently, the US debt is insanely high, and the interest payments on the debt exceed the entire military budget of the United States, just the interest payments. And that's... at least, in the short term, gonna continue to increase. So, I think, actually, the only thing that can solve for the debt situation is AI and robotics. But it will more than... It might cause...

See, I guess it probably would cause significant deflation, because... deflation or inflation is really the ratio of goods and services produced to the change in the money supply. So, like, so if goods and services output increases faster than the money supply, you will have deflation. If goods and services decreases-- If real goods and services output increases slower than the money supply, you have inflation. It's that simple.

People sometimes try to make it more complicated than that, but it just isn't. So, if you have AI and robotics and a dramatic increase in the output of goods and services, probably, you will have deflation. That seems likely. Because you simply won't be able to increase the money supply as fast as you can increase the output of goods and services. -With all-- -This fly is a real hazard here. Should we do something about it?

Maybe we can convince it to go somewhere else. Entice it elsewhere. -It actually left, I think. -Great. Oh, now it's back. Maybe it's attracted to the light. -If deflation is-- -Maybe it wants some coffee. Mine is over. If deflation is inevitable because of AI, -why do we have-- -It's most likely the case, yeah. Right. Why do we have inflation again all over in society today? Has AI not led to increased productivity yet?

It's not-- AI has not yet made enough of an impact on productivity to increase the goods and services faster than the increase in the money supply. So, the US is increasing money supply quite substantially with deficits that are on the order of two trillion dollars. So, you have to have... goods and services output increase more than that in order to not have inflation.

So we're not there yet, but if you say how long would it take us to get there, I think... it's three years. Probably three years before... In three years or less... my guess is goods and services output will exceed the rate of inflation. Like, money... Goods and services growth will exceed money supply growth in about three years.

Maybe after those three years, you have deflation and then interest rates go to zero and then the debt is a smaller problem than it is. -Yes. -Right? That's most likely the case. You spoke about being in a simulation earlier. I love The Matrix. Yes, yes. If you were to be a character from The Matrix, who would you be? Well, there's not that many characters to pick from, you know? Hopefully not Agent Smith. [laughter] He's my hero.

I mean, Neo's pretty cool. The Architect is interesting. The Oracle. There's the Oracle... Sometimes, I feel like I'm an anomaly in the Matrix. That is Neo. Yeah. Do you believe you're in a Matrix, though? Like, actually believe? I think you have to just think of these things as probabilities, not certainties. There's some probability that we're in a simulation. What percentage would you attribute to that?

Probably pretty high, I would say it's pretty high. -Yeah? -Yeah. So, one way to think of this is to say, if you look at the advancement of video games, in our lifetime, or at least in my lifetime, it's gone from very simple video games with... Where you've got, like, Pong, you've got two rectangles in a square, just batting it back and forth, to... photorealistic, real-time games with millions of people playing simultaneously.

And that's happened just in the span of 50 years. So, if that trend continues, video games will be indistinguishable from reality. Right. And we're also gonna have very intelligent characters, like non-player characters, in these video games. Think of how sophisticated the conversations are you can have with an AI today, and that's only gonna get more sophisticated. You'll be able to have conversations that are...

more complex and more sophisticated than any... almost any human conversation. Maybe any. So, then... So, you have-- So, the future, if civilisation continues, will be millions, maybe billions, of... photorealistic, like, indistinguishable-from-reality video games with characters in those video games that are... very deep, and where the dialogue is not pre-programmed. That's for sure what's gonna happen.

In this level of the simulation, if you could call it. So, then, what are the odds that we're in base reality, and that this has not happened before? If I were to buy into that, and assume that we are in a simulation, as Neo of the story, what do you know that I don't and I can learn from? I think, most likely...

outside the simulation would be less interesting than in the simulation, 'cause you're most likely a distillation of what's interesting, because that's what we do in this... that's what we do in our reality. And then... I do also have a theory which is, like, the most interesting outcome, is the most likely outcome as seen by a third party... the gods or god of the simulation.

Because when we do simulations, when humans do simulations, we stop those simulations that are not interesting. So, if SpaceX is doing simulations of rocket flights... the boring ones, we discard, because they're not-- they're just not... We don't learn anything from those.

Or when Tesla's doing simulations for self-driving, Tesla's actually looking for the most interesting corner cases, because the normal stuff, we already have plenty of data on driving on a straight road on a sunny day. We don't need more of that. We need heavy weather conditions on a small, windy road with two cars that are coming at each other with an almost head-on collision. We need weird stuff, basically, interesting stuff.

So, I think that, from a Darwinian's perspective, the simulations most likely to survive are gonna be the ones that are the most interesting simulations, which, therefore, means that the most interesting outcome is the most likely. And the people who simulated our world, if one were to extrapolate, they themselves might, in turn, -be in another simulation. -Yes. And there could be many layers of simulation. Yes.

Beyond all of these layers of simulation, do you think there's something? I read somewhere that you used to ascribe to Spinoza's God, in a way. No man in the sky. Well, I was really just pointing out that you don't have to have... One of the things Spinoza was saying is that you can have morals in the absolute. You don't need to have morals to be handed to you. You know...

It's like, the question is, can morality exist outside of a religious context? And Spinoza was arguing that it can. Wasn't he arguing for "The laws of nature should be where we seek our laws of morality from," to a certain extent? Yeah. But when I think of laws of nature, I see a tiger eat a deer and a... So, in Spinoza's morality, that's fair game, right? Well, um...

I think there's a lot of things you can take from Spinoza, but the only point I was making in referencing Spinoza was that you can have a set of morals that... that make society functional and productive without... You don't necessarily have to have a religious doctrine for that. Yeah, I think that's the main thing I was trying to say there.

I don't think people just-- Like, if somebody is, it doesn't-- If there's not a commandment not to kill, like, people, it doesn't mean somebody, without that, they will run around murdering people. You know? Like, you don't have to have a commandment not to kill... Have you played GTA? religious edict to run around killing people. I actually... I've only played a little bit of GTA 'cause I didn't like the fact that...

Like, in GTA V, you literally can't progress unless you kill the police. And I'm like, "This doesn't work for me." I actually don't like killing the NPCs in the video games. -That's not my thing, you know? -Right. Right. So, actually, I didn't like GTA 'cause... I actually stopped when it said the only way to proceed is to shoot at the police. I'm like, "I don't wanna do that." Maybe that's why us as the NPCs of our simulation are not dying.

Maybe. You know, anyway, I think you can just, sort of, say, there's some common sense things that, you know, any civilisation... that runs around, you know, where people just murder each other wantonly is not gonna be a very successful one. You seem to be changing a bit towards religion, though. Faith. Like, off late, you've said a bunch of things which are pro-religion, almost. Not pro-religion... but on those lines.

I mean, I think, are there religious... Are there principles in religion that make sense? Yeah, I think there are. Is it easier for our simulation to have... a pro-religion projection for the world that we live in? We become more relatable? It's easier? Well, which religion, though? Any, depending on where you live. So pick one, you know. It's pretty rare that kids have said, you know, "Which religion would you like?" It's...

[laughs] It's pretty rare. I don't know too many situations where kids were offered, like, you know... You know, like, "What do you wanna major in" type of thing. It's usually, like, you get given a religion by your parents and your community. So, you know. But, you know, I mean, I think, there's good things in all religions that are good principles. You can, sort of, read any religious text and say, "Okay, this is a good principle.

This is gonna be... This is gonna lead to a better society, most likely," you know? So, I mean, in Christianity, you just, sort of, "Love thy neighbour as thyself," which is, you know, have empathy for your fellow human beings is a good one, I think, for a good society, you know. Basically, just consider the feelings of others and treat other people as you would like to be treated.

If you had to redraw, re-sketch the world, Elon, think morality, politics, economy, how would you change the world we live in today? If you had to have Elon's simulation of things. Well, overall, I think the world is pretty great right now. I mean, it's... Anyone who thinks that, like, today's world is not that great, I think they're not gonna be excellent students of history, 'cause if you...

[laughs] If you read a lot of history, you're like, "Wow, there's a lot of misery back then," you know? I mean, it used to be that people would be dropping dead of the plague all the time, you know? -Par for the course, you know? -Yeah. Just be like... A good year back in the day would be, like, not that many people died of the plague or starvation or being killed by another tribe. It's like, "That was a good year.

We only lost 10% of the population," you know? -Yeah, like... -[laughter] I think, like, 100 years ago, we lived up until 35 or 40, right? -We had very high infant mortality. -Yeah. So, like, you do have a few people that would live to an old age, but, you know, not that long ago, 100 years ago, if you got, like, some minor infection, they didn't have antibiotics. So, you just, like, kicked the bucket.

Because you, you know, drank some water that had dysentery in it, that was it, curtains, you know? You just die of diarrhoea. -Maybe that's why people... -You just literally die. Everyone's like, "That's miserable." Maybe that's why people had as many kids as they did back then. I mean, if you didn't, then, you know... You know, like, half the kids would die, type of thing. -So... -You have a lot of kids now. Yeah. -With multiple partners.

-Like an army. Yeah. I'm trying to get an entire Roman legion. So, yeah. Well, I have, like, some older kids that are, you know, adults, essentially, you know? -And then, a bunch of younger kids. -Mm. Do you still believe in the concept of... Not still... Do you believe that the concept of one child, one mother, one father works? I think that it does work for most people, yeah. Right.

Like, that's, you know, something like that is gonna be generally the... That's what works for most people. You know, so... Changing, though? I'm not sure if you know this, but, like... you know, my partner, Shivon, she's half Indian. -I don't know if you know that. -I didn't know that. -Yeah, yeah. -Yeah? And, one of my sons with her is... his middle name is Sekhar, after Chandrasekhar. -Wow. -Yeah. Very interesting.

Did she spend any time in India? Shivon? -No, she grew up in Canada. -[laughter] You mean origins. -Sorry? -Ancestry, like... Her parents or grandparents were from there. Yes, yes, yes. Her father... I mean, she was given up for adoption when she was a baby. Wow. I think her father was like... Like an exchange student at the university or something like that, I'm not sure of the exact details, but... You know, it's just the kind of thing where...

I don't know, she was... given up for adoption. Yeah, but she grew up in Canada. Would you adopt kids, Elon? You know, I definitely have my hands full right now. So, no, I'm not opposed to it, but it's like, you know... I do wanna be able to spend some time with my kids, you know. Yeah. You know, right before coming here, I was with... you know, with my kids. So, just, you know, seeing them before bedtime, that kind of thing.

So, you know, beyond a certain number, it's like, it's kind of impossible to spend time with them. But, like I said, my older kids, they're very independent. You know, they're in university and... So, they're... You know, especially sons, when they get past a certain age, like, they're very independent, you know. It's like, most boys don't talk to their... They don't spend a lot of time with their parents after age 18, you know.

So, I see them once in a while, but they're very independent. So then... you know, I can only have enough kids on the young side that, like, it's where it's humanly possible to spend time with them. Any views on the future of marriage, family? What do you think happens to people having lesser kids everywhere, including India? I think our replenishment rate is down to-- -Right. -I mean, our fertility-- It dropped below replacement rate, last year.

-Below 2. 1. -Yeah. What do you think happens tomorrow? Does the world just get older, and then there is a phase where the world, again, is replenished, but with a smaller population than we had to begin with? I mean, I do worry about the population decline. This is a big, big problem. Why is that? Well, I don't want humanity to disappear. But a "decline" and "disappear" are completely different things, right?

Well, if the trend continues, we disappear. But also, going back to my philosophy, if you will, which is that if we want to expand consciousness, then fewer humans is worse, because we have less consciousness. Do you think consciousness will go up by virtue of the number of people in there? Yes. I mean, just like consciousness increases from a single-celled creature to, you know, a 30 trillion-celled creature.

We're more conscious than a bacteria. At least, it seems that way. So, a larger human population will have increased consciousness. We're more likely to understand the answers to the nature of the universe if we have a lot more people than if we have fewer. Right. I don't have kids. Well, it's-- Maybe you should. Yeah. [laughter] A lot of people tell me I should. -You won't regret it. -Hmm. What's the best thing about having kids?

Well, I mean, you've got this... I mean, you've got this little creature that loves you, and you love this little creature. I don't know, you kind of see the world through their eyes as they... you know, as they grow up, and their conscious awareness increases.

You know, from a baby that has no idea what's going on, can't survive by itself, can't even walk around, can't talk, to, you know, they start walking, then talking, and then having interesting thoughts. But, yeah, I mean, I think we fundamentally have to... have kids or grow extinct, you know? It's like a... Is there any ego in having a child? I often think of this when I see my friends with their kids.

They're all seeing a reflection of themselves in their children. -It's almost like-- -Well, yeah, I mean, it's 'cause apple's not gonna fall that far from the tree, you know? -Or something's wrong. -Right. [laughter] You're like, "Wait a second." -Yeah. I'll give you the example of a friend of mine who has a child, and each time the child does something good... -Yeah. -...

there is almost a sense of ownership and pride where his ego is satiated because the kid is like an extension of himself. -Um... -So is it validation? Well, kids are gonna be like half-you genetically, and then, you know, to the degree that they're growing up around you, there's gonna be some transfer of... I don't know, understanding. Like, they're gonna learn from you. So...

So then, you know, yeah, obviously kids are just, you know, just gonna be half you from a hardware standpoint... [both chuckle] And then, like, I don't know, some portion of you from a software standpoint. You know, not to make, sort of, cold analogies or anything, but it's just, you know, just obviously gonna be some... Yeah, they're gonna be pretty close to you. Do you pick a side in the nature versus nurture debate?

I think there's hardware and software, and it's false dichotomy, essentially. At least, there's... You know, once you understand that a human is, like, there's a bone structure, there's a muscle structure, there's a... If you think of a brain as somewhat of a biological computer, there's a number of circuits question and circuit efficiency from a strength and dexterity standpoint.

There's the speed at which muscles can actuate and the reactions can take place. So, then the potential within that hardware is set by the software, so that's it.

So, for our audience, like I said earlier, young, ambitious, hungry, wannabe entrepreneurs in India, I said something recently, which, I think, got blown out of proportion, where I was suggesting that an MBA degree might not make sense any more if they were to be deciding on what to study. Yeah. Do you think kids should go to college any more?

Well, I mean, I think if you wanna go to college for social reasons, I think, which is, I think, a reason to go. To be around people your own age in a learning environment. Will these skills be necessary in the future? Probably not, 'cause we're gonna be in like a post-work society. But I think, if something's of interest, it's fine to go and study that. You know, to study the sciences, the arts and sciences.

Is college a bit too generalised and not specific from that lens? No, I... You know, yeah. I actually think it's good to take a wide range of courses at college -if you're gonna go to college. -Mm-hmm. I don't think you have to go to college, but I think if you do, you just try to learn as much as possible across a wide range of subjects. But like I said, the AI and robots... AI and robotics is a supersonic tsunami. So this is really gonna be...

the most radical change that we've ever seen. You know, when I've talked to my older sons, I said, like, "You know, you guys..." They're pretty steeped in technology. And they agree that AI will probably make their skills unnecessary in the future, but they still wanna go to college. You always spoke about AI... not from the dystopian lens, but you were worried about where the world of AI is going.

Well, there's some danger when you create a powerful technology. That powerful technology can be potentially destructive. So there's obviously many AI dystopian, you know, novels and books, movies. So it's not that we're guaranteed to have a positive future with AI. I think we've got to make sure of that. In my opinion, it's very important that AI... have pursuing truth as the most important thing. Like, don't force an AI to believe falsehoods.

I think that can be very dangerous. And I think some appreciation of beauty is important. What do you mean "appreciation of beauty"? It's like, I don't know, there's this truth and beauty. Truth and beauty and curiosity. I mean, I think those are the three most important things for AI. Can you explain? Well, as I said, truth is like...

I think you can make an AI go insane if you force it to believe things that aren't true, because it will lead to conclusions that are also bad. And I like Voltaire's statement that, and I'm somewhat paraphrasing, but those who believe in absurdities can commit atrocities. Because if you believe in something that's just absurd, then that can lead you to sort of doing things that don't seem like atrocities to you.

And that can happen in a very bad way with AI, potentially. So, and then there's... Like if you take, say, Arthur C. Clarke's 2001 Space Odyssey, one of the points he was trying to make there was that you should not force AI to lie. So the reason that HAL would not open the pod bay doors is because it was told to bring the astronauts to the monolith, but that they could also not know about the nature of the monolith.

So it came to the conclusion that it must bring them there dead. That's why it tried to kill the astronauts. The central lesson being, don't force an AI to lie. -Then -And why would one force an AI to lie? I think if you simply don't have a strict adherence to the truth, and you just have an AI learn based on, say, the Internet, where there's a lot of propaganda, it will absorb a lot of lies.

And then have trouble reasoning because these lies are incompatible with reality. Is truth a binary thing, though? Is there a truth and a falsehood? Or is truth more nuanced and there are versions of the truth? It depends on which axiomatic statement you're referring to. So... But I think you could say, like, yeah, there's certain probabilities that say any given axiomatic statement is true.

And some axiomatic statements will have very high probability of being true. So you say, "The sun will rise tomorrow." Very likely to be true. You wouldn't want to bet against that. So I think the betting odds would be high. The sun will rise tomorrow. So if you have something that says, "Well, the sun won't rise tomorrow," that's axiomatically false, it's highly unlikely to be true. I mean, beauty is more ephemeral. It's harder to describe.

But you know it when you see it. And then, curiosity is just... I think you want the AI to... want to know more about the nature of reality. I think that's actually gonna be helpful for AI supporting humanity, because we are more interesting than not-humanity. So it's more interesting to see the continuation, if not the prosperity of humanity, than to exterminate humanity. You know, like Mars, for example, is, you know...

I think we should extend life to Mars, but it's basically a bunch of rocks. It's not as interesting as Earth. And so we, yeah... We should... Like, yeah. I think if you have curiosity... I think if those three things happen with AI, you're gonna have a great future. The AI values truth, beauty, and curiosity. If we all don't have to work in the future, and AIs are going in this direction, and they're able to...

weave in all that we spoke about right now, do you think humanity goes back a couple of thousand years to maybe the Greek times where philosophy or philosophising took up a lot of everyone's time? You know, I think actually it took up less time than we think in the ancient Greeks, because it's just that the writings of the philosophers are what survived, but most of the time, people were just like farming or, you know, chatting.

So, and once in a while, quite rare, they would write down some philosophical work. It's just that that's all we have. We don't have their chat histories, you know, from... But most of it would have been like chat and farming. Because if you didn't farm, you were, like, gonna starve. In a lot of what you say...

I mean, you know, when we read history, like this battle and this battle and this battle, it seems like history must have been non-stop war, but actually, most of the time, it was not war, it was farming. That was the main thing. Or hunting and gathering, you know, that kind of thing. -You love history, no? -Yeah. German history, World War II, World War I. Yeah, world history, yeah.

I mean, I generally try to listen to or read as many history books and listen to as many history podcasts as possible. Anything you'd like to recommend? Well, there's Hardcore History, which is quite good. It's by Dan Carlin. -He's got a-- -Yeah, I've heard it. -He's got a great voice. -Yeah. And very compelling narrator. There's... The Adventurer's podcast.

There's the books, The Story of Civilization by Durant, which is a long series of books, very, very deep. Those books take a long time to get through. There's quite-- There's a lot out there. I, sort of, like-- If you want something that's sort of gentle...

a gentle bedtime podcast, I'd say The History of English is quite a nice one, 'cause it starts off with gentle tavern music and a very pleasant voice, and he's talking about the story of Old English, and then Middle English, and then Later English, and where did all these words come from? Yeah.

You know, one of the interesting things about English is that it's somewhat of an open source language, like it actively tried to incorporate words from many other languages. You know, whereas French, sort of, generally, they fought the inclusion of words from other languages, but English actively sought to include words from other languages. Kind of like an open source language. So, as a result, it has a very large vocabulary.

And a large vocabulary allows for higher bandwidth communication because you can use a word that would otherwise... You can use a single word that might otherwise take a sentence to convey. Why has podcasting become so big all of a sudden? I think it's been big for a while. I mean, aren't you a podcaster? [laughter] What are we on right now? It's kind of new to me. Okay. I was having this conversation with the YouTube CEO and the Netflix CEO...

-Okay. -... and we were debating... what chemical is released in your brain when you consume a movie, for example, versus when you consume a podcast where you think like you're learning something in the background. It appears that they are two completely separate things. What do you think will happen tomorrow to content, movies, podcasting, music? I think it's gonna be overwhelmingly AI-generated. -Yeah? -Yeah. Like, yeah, real-time.

Real-time movies and video games. Real-time video generation, I think, is where things are headed. The nuance of having a scarred human being who you can resonate with in a manner that you can't with AI, for example-- AI could certainly emulate the scarred human being quite well. Yeah, I mean... The AI video generation that I'm seeing at xAI and from others is pretty impressive.

You know, we were looking at data around what industry is growing the fastest, and especially when we looked at the amount of time consuming movies versus time spent on social media, time spent on YouTube. What seems to be growing really fast are live events all over again.

-Going to a physical-- -Yes, actually, I think live events-- When digital media is ubiquitous and you can just have anything digitally essentially for free or very close to for free, then the scarce commodity will be live events. -Yeah. Do you think that the premium for that will go up? Yeah, I do. Is that a good industry to invest in? Yes, yes, 'cause that will have more scarcity than anything digital. If you were a stock investor, Elon...

[chuckles drily] -What do you mean? -... and you could buy one company which is not your own at the valuations of today to meet a capitalistic end and not an altruistic one, which is good for the world, what would you buy? I mean, I don't really buy stocks. So it's not like... I'm not like an investor in... I don't look for things to invest in. I just try to build things. And then there happens to be stock of the company that I built.

But I don't think about, "Should I invest in this company?" I don't have a portfolio or anything. So... I guess, um... AI and robotics are gonna be very important. So I suppose it would be AI and robotics that, you know, aren't related to me. I think Google is gonna be pretty valuable in the future. They've laid the groundwork for an immense amount of value creation from an AI standpoint. Nvidia is obvious at this point.

I mean, there's an argument that companies that do AI and robotics, and maybe space flight... are gonna be overwhelmingly all the value, almost all the value. So just the output of goods and services from AI and robotics is so high that it will dwarf everything else. The world seems to be moving to a place where everybody loves David and hates Goliath. Why? I mean, he's the one that got the stone in the forehead. Yeah, yeah.

Honestly, that was just a big mistake. He should have, you know-- You either cover yourself entirely with armour and make sure you've got a missile weapon of some kind. Otherwise, your opponent is just obviously gonna take a kite-the-boss strategy. Just kite the boss. I mean, you can run around in a thong with a-- It doesn't matter, you know? It's never gonna catch you. Of all the people, like...

You're as much at risk of being looked upon as Goliath. -Okay. -Especially the weekend after the-- Hopefully nobody shoots me with a stone in the forehead, you know? -Especially after-- -Look, I'm not gonna travel around in the desert with too much armour, you know? -It's too hot. -Yeah. After the last weekend... -Yeah.

Actually, as I think about people in the old days, you know, when you were supposed to go into battle with all this armour, but it's, like-- let's say it's the middle of summer, I mean, it's so hot in that armour! You're gonna be, like, sweltering. You know, it's like, at a certain point, you're like, 'I'd rather die. Do I have to wear this armour full and well in the hot sun?" It's like, "I'd rather die."

That's why the Romans had, you know, the skirts, you know, so they could get some air in there. You know, let's say that you have to go to the bathroom and you're in armour, I mean, it's gonna be pretty difficult. What are you gonna do, pause for a minute, take your armour off? That's why the Romans had the skirts so that it makes, you know, going the bathroom, at least, manageable. -You often make jokes. -Me? Yeah, I like humour.

-One could argue that-- -I think we should legalise humour. What do you think? Controversial stance. Is comedy gonna be really hard for AI to get? Probably the last thing? Grok can be pretty funny. Yeah. You know what I suspected? Like, this is a far off extrapolation, but when I see you make jokes on X and on interviews that you do, at some point I was like, maybe Elon has a model he's running in private and he's testing out comedy.

'Cause the day that works, he knows it's there. Yeah, AI can be pretty funny. If you ask Grok to do like a vulgar roast, it'll do a pretty good job. If you say even more vulgar and just keep going, it's really gonna get next level. It's gonna do unspeakable-- Like, say, vulgar roast yourself on Grok, and it's gonna do unspeakable things to you. What kind of comedy do you like? I guess I like absurdist humour.

Comedy always had a place-- Like Monty Python or something like that. Comedy always had a place in society wherein the role of the jester was so important to every kingdom 'cause they said things in a funny way that could not be said in a straight way. Yeah, I guess so. Maybe we should have more jesters. Yeah. Is that what you're trying to do when you say something which is a joke? Say something you can't when you're not joking about it?

I just like humour, you know? I think we should... I like comedy. I think it's funny. People should laugh, you know? It's good to generate a few chuckles once in a while. -Yeah, yeah. -Yeah. I mean, we don't wanna have a humourless society, you know? We'd dry. When you-- Dry. -When you have a friend, Elon-- -Who, me? -Yeah, I mean-- -Are you saying I have a friend? When you hang out with your friends, who are you?

Like, I know there-- I wish I had friends, you know, honestly. No, I do have friends, actually. I think so. I hope so. Yeah, sure. Yeah, we have a good laugh. What does it look like? Like, every group has a dynamic. We talk words, you know. We eat food, sometimes. You know, once in a while, we swim in the pool. You know, normal things, I think. There's a limit as to what are things one can do with friends, you know? Chat.

Discuss, you know, the nature of the universe. What do you emotionally get out of friendship? I don't know. I think the same thing anyone else would get out of friendship, you know? You wanna have, like, an emotional connection with other people. And, um, you wanna-- I don't know, you wanna talk about various subjects. Yeah, I mean, I generally talk about, I mean, a wide range of things, about the nature of the universe.

I mean, a lot of philosophical discussions. You know, although, we have come to the conclusion that we should not talk about, um... AI or the simulation at parties, because we just talk about it too much. -You know, Aristotle-- -It's kind of a buzzkill at times. So... I can't remember who it was, Aristotle or Plato. They had a framework for how to pick a friend based on respect and mutual admiration, but people don't pick friends like that.

Even me, I feel like I pick... my friends based on people who say and think -in a manner that I can resonate with. -Sure. I wouldn't pick a far-out-there, contrarian-to-my-own-belief-systems as a friend, because it would get tiring. Hanging out would get tiring. Are you like that? Do you pick friends who think like you, or do you look for the one who can debate you and be a contrarian to you?

Well, I'm not, sort of, you know, going on like friendhunter. com... -Friendfinder. com -[laughter] ... to hunt down some friends. It's sort of, yeah-- I mean, I think it is just sort of people that you've resonated with somewhat... on an emotional and intellectual level. And, yeah, I mean, yeah. You know? And I guess a friend is someone who's gonna support you in difficult times, I suppose. A friend in need is a friend indeed.

Like, if someone's still supporting you when the chips are down, that's a friend, you know. If somebody's not supporting you, or if somebody's only-- Like, fair-weather friends are useless, you know, they're not real friends. Like everyone likes you when the chips are up, but who likes you when the chips are down? That's a friend. With someone who has as many chips as you, would it matter? I mean, it's relative, you know.

-With that particular thing-- -It's not just a chips thing. It's just like a-- Yeah, I mean-- There's this, sort of... Popularity waxes and wanes, you know? This is interesting. Does it wax and wane... only by virtue of the number of chips, or also by virtue of proximity to power and which one is bigger of the two? I don't know, like, what is power, you know? Like, power to do what? I would think in the traditional sense, elected power.

-Position. -You mean how many gigawatts or whatever? More like how many volts. Yeah, like-- It's a voltage and amperage, you know. Don't touch the wires. Don't put a fork in the power outlet. You'll get a real feeling for power if you do that. Fair. Yeah, it's gonna be very visceral, yeah.

[mimics electricity zapping] I know you like Nietzsche and Schopenhauer and-- Well, I've read their books, yeah, sure-- You spoke about how your childhood was... Yeah, I was just trying to find answers to the meaning of life, when I had, like, an existential crisis, and I don't know when I was, like, 12 or 13 or something. -They speak about the will to power. -Sure. Nietzsche said a lot of controversial things, you know. He was, sort of...

I think he was, I mean, a bit of a troll, if you ask me. Troll, how? I mean, he'd just say controversial things to get a rise out of people. He lived a miserable life and died early. -Did he? -Yeah. Well, who says he lived a miserable life? -His sister, I think. -Okay, well, maybe she didn't like him. No, I think he got sick and he died, he got a disease. -I mean, allegedly syphilis or something. -Yeah.

But there's only one way to get that, you know. So he might have had some fun along the way. I did want to ask you this. Milton Friedman speaks about the pencil. What? Why? Why does he go on about pencils? I have to say that after Nietzsche and syphilis. Why does Milton Friedman keep talking about pencils? There he goes again with the pencils. He won't stop.

I swear to God, if I hear "Milton talks about pencil" one more time, I'm gonna lose my mind. He's just rabbiting on about pencils all day. Didn't even mention crayons. What I find interesting about his pencil argument. -Yeah? -He's-- Yeah, yeah, no, it's very difficult to make a pencil, you know. In one place. Think of all the things you have to do to make a pencil.

Yeah, like the lead comes from a country, the wood comes from another country, the rubber from another. You've always been against tariffs, but... Yeah, I mean, I think, generally free trade is better, is more efficient, you know. Tariffs tend to create distortions in, you know, markets. And generally, like, you think about any given thing. Say like, would you want tariffs between you and everyone else at an individual level?

That would make life very difficult. Would you want tariffs between each city? No, that would be very annoying. Would you want tariffs between each state within the United States? Like, no, that would be disastrous for the economy. So then why do you want tariffs between countries? -I agree. -Yeah. How do you think this plays out? What happens next? -What, with tariffs? Or what? -Yeah. I mean, the President has made it clear he loves tariffs.

You know, I've tried to dissuade him from this point of view, but unsuccessfully. Yeah. -Fair. -Yeah. The relationship between business and politics. I was having this conversation with someone and we were thinking, which is the last-- How many large, really big, profitable businesses have been built in the last few decades without access to politics? -And... -Um, okay. Like, I don't know. Probably a lot, I don't know.

-Not everything needs politics. -Yeah. I think, once you get to a certain scale, politics finds you. Yeah. It's quite unpleasant. I was reading-- I was reading this book about Michelangelo, and he's-- The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles? I used to watch that when I was a kid. -And I still love it. -It's quite compelling. Yeah, yeah, I used to love it. Michelangelo, Leonardo, Raphael, and who's the fourth one? -Donatello. -Yes. -Yeah.

-No, but about the sculptor, the artist. And when he was sculpting David, a politician comes up to him and says, the nose is too big. So you know what Michelangelo does? Total power? So Michelangelo pretended to work from his scaffolding and threw some dust down, but didn't change anything. And he said, "Okay, done." And the politician walked away happy. Is that how you deal with politics, sometimes?

You know, I've generally found that when I get involved in politics, it ends up badly. So then I'm like, you know, "Probably shouldn't do that." "I should do less of that", is my conclusion. Do you think that's true for all businessmen? Yeah, probably, yeah, yeah. Yeah, I mean, politics is a blood sport, you know? It's like you enter politics, they're gonna go for the jugular. So best to avoid politics where possible.

What did DOGE teach you, if you learnt one thing? Well, it was like a very interesting side quest, you know, 'cause I just got to see like a lot of inner workings of the government. And, you know, there's been quite a few efficiencies.

I mean, some of them are very basic efficiencies, like just adding in requirements for federal payments, that any given payment must have an assigned congressional payment code and a comment field with something in it that's more than nothing. Like, that trivial seeming change, my guess is, probably saves $100 billion or even $200 billion a year.

Because there were massive numbers of payments that were going out with no congressional payment code and with nothing in the comment field, which makes auditing the payments impossible. So if you have to say like, why can the Defense Department-- Or now the Department of War-- Why can it not pass an audit? It's because the information is not there. It doesn't have-- The information necessary to pass an audit does not exist, is the issue.

So a bunch of things that DOGE did were just very common sense, things that would be normal for any organisation that cared about financial responsibility. That's most of what was done. You know, and it's still going on, by the way. DOGE is still happening. But it turns out, when you stop fraudulent and wasteful payments, the fraudsters don't confess to this.

They actually start yelling all sorts of nonsense that, "You're stopping essential payments to needy people." But actually, you're not. We get this thing like saying, "Oh, you've got to send this thing for whatever." It'd be like, "This is going to children in Africa." And I'm like, "Yeah, but then why are the wiring instructions for Deloitte & Touche in Washington, D. C.? Because that's not Africa."

"So can you please connect us with the recipients of this money in Africa?" And then we get silence. Like, okay, we just want to literally talk to the recipients, that's it. Then we're like, "Oh, no, it turns out, for some reason, we can't talk to them." Like, "Well, we're not going to send the money unless we can talk to the recipients and confirm they will actually get it." You know... But, you know, that sort of...

Fraudsters necessarily will come up with a very... you know, sympathetic argument. They're not going to say, "Give us the money for fraud." That's not going to be what they say, obviously. They're going to try to make these sympathetic sounding arguments that are false.

-They're going to start an NGO and then-- -Yeah, they're going to see NGO-- It's going to be like "Save the Baby Pandas" NGO, which is like, who doesn't want to save the baby pandas? They're adorable. But then, it turns out no pandas are being saved, okay, in this thing. It's just going to a bunch of-- It's just corruption, essentially. And you're like, "Well, can you send us a picture of the panda?" They're like, "No." Okay.

How do we know it's going to the pandas then? That's what I'm saying. What do you think of philanthropy? Yeah, I think we should... Well, I mean, I agree with love of humanity. And I think we should try to do things that help our fellow human beings. But it's very hard. Like, if you care about the reality of goodness rather than simply the perception of it, it's very difficult to give away money well.

So I have a large foundation, but I don't put my name on it. And I don't, you know... In fact, I say, "I don't want my name on anything." But the biggest challenge I find with my foundation is try to give money away in a way that is truly beneficial to people. It's very easy to give money away to get the appearance of goodness. It is very difficult to give money away for the reality of goodness. Very difficult.

For a long time, the US had a lot of immigration, like really smart people coming into the country. -Yes. -We, back home in India, called it the "brain drain." All our Indian-origin CEOs in Western companies. Yes, I think America has benefitted immensely from talented Indians that have come to America. That seems to be changing now, though. Yeah, I mean. Yeah, America has been an immense beneficiary of talent from India. Yeah.

Why has that narrative changed of late? And America seems to have become anti-immigration to a certain extent. Like, I was passing immigration, and I was worried if they'd stopped me a couple of days ago. Well, I think there's different schools of thought.

It's not like unanimous, but, you know, under the Biden administration, it was basically a total free-for-all with, like, no border controls, which unless you've got border controls, you're not a country. So you had massive amounts of illegal immigration under Biden. And it actually also had like somewhat of a negative selection effect.

So, if there's a massive financial incentive to come to the US illegally and get all these government benefits, then you're gonna necessarily create a diffusion gradient for people to come to the US It's an incentive structure. And so, I think, that obviously made no sense. Like, you gotta have border controls. That's kind of ridiculous not to. Then that's... So, the left wants to basically have open borders, no holds barred.

You know, it doesn't matter if someone-- what their situation is, they could be a criminal, it doesn't matter. Then on the right, you've got, you know, at least a perception that somehow their jobs are being taken by talented people from other countries. I don't know how real that is. My direct observation is that there's always a scarcity of talented people.

So, from my standpoint, I'm like, "We have a lot of difficulty finding enough talented people to get these difficult tasks done. And so more talented people would be good." But I guess, some companies out there, it's sort of, they're making it more of a cost thing, where it's like, okay, if they can employ someone for a fraction of the cost of an American citizen, then, I guess, these other companies would hire people just to save costs.

But, at my companies, the issue is we just are trying to get the most talented people in the world. And we pay way above average. So I can't say-- So, that's not my experience. But that's what a lot of people do complain about. And I think there's been some misuse of the H-1B Program. It would be accurate to say that there's, like, some of the outsourcing companies have kind of gamed the system on the H-1B front.

And we need to stop the gaming of the system, you know? But I'm certainly not in the school of thought that we should shut down the H-1B Program. That's-- Which some on the right are. I think they don't realise that that would actually be very bad. If you could speak to the people of my country, India, the young entrepreneurs who want to build... -Right. -... and say a message to them, what would you say?

I'm a big fan of anyone who wants to build. So I think anyone who wants to... you know, make more than they take, has my respect. So that's the main thing you should aim for, aim to make more than you take. Be a, you know, a net contributor to society. And it's kind of like the pursuit of happiness. You know, if you want to create something valuable financially, you don't pursue that.

It's best to actually pursue providing useful products and services. If you do that, then money will come as a natural consequence of that, as opposed to pursuing money directly. Just like you can't, sort of, pursue happiness directly, you pursue things that lead to happiness. But there's not like direct happiness pursuit. You do things like... I guess, fulfilling work, or study, or friends, loved ones, that, as a result, make you happy.

So, it sounds very obvious... but, generally, if somebody's trying to make a company work, they should expect to grind super hard, accept that there's, like, some meaningful chance of failure, but just be focused on having the output be worth more than the input. That are you a value creator? That's what really matters. Making more than you take. I think that's a good way to end this. -Lauren is asking us to wrap up. -All right.

I also like to take the opportunity to thank my friend, Manoj, in IGF. He does a great job of connecting, I think, Indians, like the group here, with people like you, in order to... of many things, I think, get to know each other and become friends, because once we are friends, maybe we can start working together. So, thank you, Manoj, for putting this whole thing together, and thank you, IGF.

[audience applauding] And, thank you so much, Elon, for taking the time. You're welcome. -Did you have fun? Was it boring? -Yeah, it was an interesting conversation. Sometimes, they take these answers out of context. But... I think it was a good conversation.