嘿，我是《Elon, Inc.》的主持人大卫·帕帕多普洛斯。呃，本周我们为你带来我们在卡特的采访，嗯，由我们的同事米歇尔·侯赛因对埃隆本人进行。现在请收看这场采访的完整内容。另外你也应该知道，我们本周这一期节目，我们本周的《Elon Inc.》节目，全部都是我和马克斯对这场采访进行分析和剖析，包括亮点、低点等等，等等。请欣赏。大家好，还有埃隆·马斯克。

欢迎来到卡塔尔经济论坛。你好吗？谢谢邀请我。我很好。你好吗？非常好，谢谢。也非常高兴你能和我们在一起。你知道，今天在DHA现场的观众中，有一些你认识的人，是多年来在资金上支持过你的人。自从你上次于2022年在这里发言以来，你的生活发生了许多变化。

你不仅在经营多家公司——当时你就在这么做——现在还在政府中担任职务。所以，首先，我希望你不要介意，我有时不得不把你从一个话题转到另一个话题，因为在现有时间里，我们有很多内容要谈。没问题。好。那么我们就先从这个确切的事实开始：你现在既是一名CEO，又担任政府顾问。

跟我讲讲你这一周。它是怎么安排的？你的时间如何分配？嗯，我经常出行。所以，我昨天早上在硅谷。昨天晚上在洛杉矶。我现在在奥斯汀。明天会去华盛顿特区。我会在那里，呃，我想，明晚与总统共进晚餐之后待在那里。嗯，然后是，一大堆内阁部长会议，接着，呃，周四晚上回到赛隆谷。

但我是说，你的时间分配，它是，它是——嗯，显然事情很多——但是否仍像你前一阵子说的那样，每周大约花1至2天处理政府工作？对，没错。那对你的企业生活意味着什么？因为如果我们从Tesla说起，这家公司近几个月遭受了你所称的反弹。

那么，你有什么计划来扭转这种局面、扭转销量下滑的景象？你认为到什么阶段才能扭转它？哦，已经扭转了。给我一些这方面的证据。我刚刚看了欧洲4月的销售数据，数据显示各大市场出现了非常显著的下滑。呃，欧洲是我们最疲弱的市场。我们在其他所有地方都很强劲。

嗯，所以，呃，我们的销量目前表现得很好。嗯，我们预计不会出现任何任何显著的销量缺口，而且，嗯，你知道，显然股市也认识到了这一点，因为我们现在的市值又回到了1万亿美元以上。所以，嗯，显然市场了解当前情况。所以它已经已经扭转了。不过，与去年同期相比，欧洲的销量仍然下降。在欧洲。好的。

是的，但但是，这这对所有制造商来说都都一样。没有例外。这是否意味着你将无法——这是否意味着欧洲市场相当疲软？好的。但你会承认，对吧，你所面临的，好的，我们就只说欧洲。你所面临的是一个重大问题。Tesla 曾是一个极具向往感的品牌。人们认同它。

它看到了这点，他们看到它处于气候危机的最前沿。而现在，人们开着车到处跑，车上贴着贴纸，上面写着：“我是在我们知道埃隆疯了之前买的这辆车。”另外，也有人因为，呃，埃隆疯了，或者不管他们怎么看这件事，而购买购买它。嗯，所以，是的，我们或许失去了一些左翼消费者的销量，但从右翼那里赢得了销量。

呃，目前的销量数字，呃，很强劲，而且，呃，我们我们没有看到需求方面有任何问题。那么，而我的意思是，你你只要看看股价就行，如果你想要最好的内部信息，那那些股市，呃，分析师掌握着这些信息，而且，嗯，如果情况不不错，一只股票就不会，呃，在接近历史高点的位置交易。情况很好。别担心。好的。

我我引用的是销量数据，ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra，而不是股价。那么，请告诉我你对 Tesla 的投入程度。你是否认为自己会，并且是否承诺在5年后仍担任 Tesla 的首席执行官？是的。对此完全没有疑问。嗯，不，我可能会死。好的，除此之外。如果我死了，我就见不到你了。所以存在一种轻微的模式。

这这是否意味着你的薪酬价值对你的决定没有任何影响？嗯，这其实不是本论坛讨论的议题议题。嗯，我认为，显然，如果完成了某件不可思议的事情，就应该给予报酬，而这份报酬应该与，嗯，完成的那件不可思议的事情相匹配。

嗯，但我我我相信，无论那个，嗯，无论特拉华州某个冒充法官的活动人士碰巧做了什么，都不会影响未来的薪酬。这就是那位曾两次否决授予你的560亿美元薪酬方案的法官。我认为，按股票期权的当前价值计算的价值。对。不是法官。不是法官。是那个穿着万圣节服装、角色扮演法官的活动人士。好的。

那那是你的描述。嗯，我认为，按股票期权当前价值计算的价。我认为，依照法律的实际正义，按股票期权的当前价值计算，我认为那份薪酬方案的价值约为1000亿美元。你是说，你对未来薪酬方案的价值感到很放松吗？

只要你仍与我们一起生活在这个星球上，你决定在未来5年继续投入 Tesla，这完全与薪酬无关。不，并非无关。那么，薪酬确实是影响你是否继续投入 Tesla 的一个相关因素。嗯，对我而言，重要的是拥有足够的投票控制权，使得，嗯，激进投资者无法将我赶下台。而且我已经公开说过很多次了。嗯，但别让这整件事都变成对我所谓薪酬的讨论。

这不是钱的问题。而是对公司未来拥有合理控制权的问题。尤其是如果我们正在制造，呃，数百万、甚至可能数十亿个人形机器人。嗯，我不能坐在那里，呃呃，然后想要因为政治原因被，嗯，被活动人士赶出去。那是不可接受的。这就是唯一重要的事。不，我们换个话题。好的。嗯，只问一个问题。我们换个话题。

嗯，在我们转向其他公司之前有一个问题，那就是，我想知道 Tesla 在过去几个月发生的部分事情，你是否觉得是针对你个人的？是的。那是否让你后悔你的任何政治行动，或者重新考虑这些行动，因为它是——我做了，我做了需要做的事。呃，那种那种强烈的抗体反应，嗯，而我我从未实施过暴力。

嗯，然而，呃，我的公司却遭受了大规模暴力。有人威胁要对我实施大规模暴力。这些人是谁？他们为什么要那样做？他们能错到什么程度？他们站在错误的——他们站在历史错误的一边。那样做是邪恶的。跑去破坏某个可可怜的无辜者的汽车，威胁要杀死我。这些人怎么了？没有伤害过任何人。所以，需要对他们采取一些行动。

而且他们中的一些人将会入狱，这是他们应得的。还会有更多人——你你指的是对 Tesla 展厅的袭击，但我认为向展厅射击和烧毁汽车是不可接受的。是的。那些人会入狱，资助和组织他们的人也会入狱。别担心。

但你难道不会——你不会不会——但你难道不会不会承认，在欧洲，一些转而反对 Tesla 的人是因为你的政治立场而不满，而他们中极少有人会以任何方式诉诸暴力。他们只是反对他们看到你在政治上说过或做过的事情。嗯，反对政治上的事情当然没问题，但诉诸，呃，暴力、把某人的模拟像吊起来以及发出死亡威胁，是不不可以的。

嗯，那显然是不可以的。嗯，呃，你知道，呃，那很荒谬。嗯，那无论如何都，呃，完全没有任何正当理由。而且而且，呃，一些传统媒体却试图为其辩护，这是昧着良心的。他们可耻。那我们来谈谈你的其他公司和其他业务领域。

SpaceX，我看到你最近在西点，呃，军校的一次演讲中说，战争的未来是人工智能和无人机，而显然，鉴于目前的世界局势，国防是一个日益蓬勃发展的行业。你认为 SpaceX 会进军武器化无人机领域吗？[笑声] 你问的问题当然很有意思，呃，但无法回答。嗯，所以不会，SpaceX 是，呃，它它是太空发射领域的领导者。所以 SpaceX 不制造无人机。

呃，SpaceX 制造火箭、卫星和互联网终端。嗯，所以，但 SpaceX 在太空发射领域占据着一个一个非常主导的地位。所以，在今年发射入轨的质量中，SpaceX 可能会完成90%。嗯，中国将完成剩余部分的一半一半，也就是5%，而世界其他地区，包括美国的其他部分，将完成约5%。

所以 SpaceX 完成的量将约为世界其他地区总和的10倍，或者中国的20倍，而这是——而中国实际上做得非常出色。嗯，原因在于，我们正在将世界迄今见过的、规模遥遥领先的最大卫星星座送入送入轨道。嗯，所以我认为，目前在轨运行的所有活跃卫星中，大约或许接近80%属于 SpaceX。

嗯，而且它们正在世界各地提供全球性的高高带宽连接，呃。事实上，这次连接使用的就是 SpaceX 连接。

所以我认为这是一件非常好的事，嗯，因为这意味着我们可以，嗯，为世界上那些没有互联网或互联网非常昂贵的地区提供低成本、高带宽的互联网。我认为，帮助人们摆脱贫困并帮助他们的最重要的一件事，就是给他们，嗯，提供互联网连接，嗯，因为一旦有了互联网连接，你就可以在互联网上免费学习任何东西，也可以把自己的商品和服务卖到全球市场，嗯，而且，嗯，一旦你通过互联网获得了知识，并拥有参与商业活动的能力，嗯，这将极大改善世界各地人们的生活质量，而且它确实已经做到了，嗯，我只想感谢在座任何可能提供过帮助的人，你知道，嗯，在

星链，以及让它在他们的国家获批方面，而且我认为它正在做很多好事，目前批准它的国家，我想有130个，都对它非常满意。嗯，我，我，我目前预计SpaceX不会进入武器业务。

那当然，那并不是一个抱负。我们经常，我们经常被要求，呃，去做，去做武器项目，但到目前为止我们都拒绝了。你是否设想SpaceX，或者实际上星链，作为一个独立实体在不久的将来上市，或者究竟会不会上市？嗯，星链有可能，呃，在未来某个时候上市。那么时间框架会是什么？你考虑的是怎样的时间框架？我的意思是，不着急。

我不，我不急着上市。嗯，你知道，上市我想是一种，嗯，你知道，可能赚更多钱的方式，但代价是承担大量上市公司的管理负担，而且不可避免地，嗯，会有一大堆非常烦人的诉讼。

嗯，所以美国确实需要对股东、股东派生诉讼采取一些措施，呃，因为它允许那些并不代表股东的原告律师事务所，呃，呃，通过找一个持有少量股份的傀儡原告来假装自己代表股东，呃，从而对公司发起一场大规模诉讼。

而讽刺的是，极其讽刺的是，呃，呃，即使他们声称代表的那个群体投票表示不希望进行这场诉讼，诉讼仍会继续。那么，如果该群体投票反对，怎么还能说这是代表该群体的集体诉讼？这就是我们在美国面临的荒谬局面。它需要，它迫切需要改革，任何经营过上市公司的人都经历过这一点。

这是一个需要改变的荒谬局面。嗯，你认为唐纳德·特朗普可能会改变它吗？你显然能让他听取你的意见。我想你已经向他提出过这件事了。这是你在星链进行任何IPO之前试图改变的事情吗？嗯，这需要通过一项法律。嗯，问题在于，你需要60名参议员、参议院的票，而民主党人，嗯，会投反对票。

嗯，嗯，那个、那个、那个、那个原告律师界，我认为是民主党的第2大捐助者。那就是，那就是问题所在。在州一级，这可以解决。而且，而且我应该说，得克萨斯州最近通过了一项法律，嗯，至少在州一级让这件事合理得多，因为你必须让至少33名股东中的1名同意他们属于一个股东群体，3%。

这是一个，这将会，将会对特权诉讼很有帮助。好的。嗯，我们来谈谈人工智能，它以不同方式存在于你的众多业务以及我们所有人的世界中。自从你3年前上次在这个论坛发言以来，生成式人工智能的发展是其中一项重大变化。当然，你也通过 Grok 身处这一领域，几乎所有人都会知道它。

你共同创立了 Open AI，后来离开了，而且显然正在与 Open AI 和萨姆·奥曼打官司。想请你谈谈这件事的现状，因为上周你和总统一起在沙特阿拉伯，嗯，和萨姆·奥曼在同一时间出现在同一个地方，就在附近。好的。那么，这是否意味着你会继续推进针对 Open AI 的诉讼？是的。

所以，听着，我想出了 OpenAI 这个名字，把它设想为开源的，嗯，并且是非营利性的，而且最初我为 AI OpenAI 提供了大约5000万美元的资金，嗯，嗯，它原本应当是一家非营利的、呃、开源公司，而现在它是，他们正试图为了自己的经济利益改变这一点，呃，把它变成一家闭源的营利性公司。

所以，这就像，假设你，嗯，你资助了一个非营利组织来帮助保护亚马孙雨林，但他们没有那么做，反而变成了一家木材公司，砍倒森林，然后出售木材。你会说：“等一下，这不是我资助的东西。”这就是 Open AI。不过，他们确实对公司结构作出了一些改变，不是吗？这是为了回应你所说的那些话。

不，那只是他们对媒体说的话。好的。嗯，部分，他们已经部分，他们已经部分收回了重组业务的计划。我猜这并没有改变你对此事的感受。所以你决心与他们对簿公堂。当然。好的。嗯，那肯定会是一件值得关注的事。

我还想问你关于人工智能和监管的问题，因为你上次在这里与约翰·米克尔思韦特交谈时，曾对人工智能带来的风险说过一些相当强烈的话，而且你说，你确实认为美国缺少的是一个联邦人工智能监管机构，你知道，类似于食品药品监督管理局或联邦航空管理局的机构。

现在你显然处于这样一个领域，相比想要新的监管机构，你更多，你更多地站在削减监管的一边。那么，你对于是否需要人工智能监管机构的看法改变了吗？嗯，并不是说我认为不应该有监管机构。嗯，你可以把监管机构想象成体育赛场上的裁判。

嗯，应该有一定数量的裁判，但不应该有多到让你一踢球就会撞到一个的裁判。嗯，所以，嗯，在美国许多，在大多数，呃，应用，呃，领域中，监管负担随着时间推移不断增长，以至于就像场上的裁判比球员还多。嗯，所以，嗯，而这是长期繁荣所带来的自然结果。认识到这一点非常重要。

这种情况在整个历史上都曾发生。当你经历一段长期繁荣、没有生死存亡之战的时期，就没有，就没有，嗯，针对，呃，那些，那些不必要的，嗯，法律和法规的清理功能。

所以，发生的情况是，每年都会通过更多法律和更多法规，因为，你知道，立法者会立法，监管者会监管，嗯，而随着时间推移，越来越多的法律和法规会稳步堆积，直到一切都成为非法行为。让我给你举一个真正荒谬的情况作为例子。嗯，在拜登政府执政期间，SpaceX，嗯，因为没有在美国雇用寻求庇护者而遭到起诉。

现在，问题在于，根据 ITAR，即国际武器贸易条例，SpaceX 雇用任何并非美国永久居民的人实际上都是违法的，因为，因为其前提是，如果他们不是永久居民，就会带着先进的火箭技术返回自己的祖国。

所以，我们同时，呃，处于这样一种情况：雇用寻求庇护者是违法的，而且，呃，雇用寻求庇护者也是违法的，而拜登的司法部却选择起诉我们，尽管两条路都是违法的。做也该死，不做也该死。但我的问题具体是关于人工智能监管机构的，你3年前曾说需要这样一个机构。而且你说，我们需要主动监管人工智能，而不是被动应对。

你改变对此事的看法了吗？没有，当然没有。什么什么，没有，当然没有。我的意思是，场上应该有一些裁判，少数，少数裁判，但场上不应该挤满裁判，呃，以至于你无论朝哪个方向踢球都会撞到一个。

所以，那些，那些，那些，那些已经存在很长时间的领域，比如汽车，嗯，还有航空航天，呃，你知道，呃，食品和药品之类的行业，监管过度，但人工智能这样的新领域监管不足。事实上，根本没有监管机构在……所以，所以应该有一个。你仍然这么认为吗？是的。

我只是在说，我认为这只是基本常识，你，你希望至少有，你，你希望场上有少数裁判。你不会希望有一支裁判大军。嗯，但在任何特定运动的任何特定赛场上，甚至任何特定的领域、工业领域中，你都希望有少数裁判。嗯，以确保帮助公共安全，嗯，得到照顾。

嗯，但你不会希望有那么，那么，有一个，有一个，有一个，一个合适的裁判数量。就像，就像我说的，与体育运动作比较时，其实很容易直观理解这一点。如果，如果整个赛场都挤满，挤满裁判，那会显得很荒谬。嗯，但如果完全没有裁判，你的比赛就不会那么好。好的。那么，接下来我们谈谈你的新世界，你的，你为政府提供建议的角色。

你处于这样一个独特且前所未有的位置：你自己拥有价值数十亿美元的联邦政府合同，主要是通过 SpaceX，同时现在又因为 Doge 而掌握了内部人士对政府的了解。仅凭这一事实，从广义上说，你能看出其中存在利益冲突或潜在利益冲突吗？

嗯，我，我其实不这么认为，纵观历史，在美国政府和其他政府中，曾有许多拥有经济利益的顾问。嗯，而我只是一名顾问。我没有正式权力。嗯，就是这样。呃，总统可以选择，呃，接受或不接受我的建议，事情就是这样。

嗯，如果有任何一份，你知道，我的任何公司获得的合同，被人们认为不知为何并非，呃，是，是以不当方式授予的，嗯，至少可以说，它会立刻成为头版新闻，嗯，而且，而且如果，如果，如果我没有提到它，我的竞争对手当然会提。所以，如果你没有看到这种情况，嗯，那么显然不存在利益冲突。

嗯，呃，是的，嗯，不过还有另一种看法，比如你有许多竞争对手，无论是波音这样的公司，还是那些想为NASA做更多你们这类工作的公司、蓝色起源、火箭实验室，而且因为Doge遍布联邦政府的每个部门，你或为Doge工作的人，而你又是其背后的推动力量，便能了解那些公司的事务。

以及那些公司与联邦政府的关系。不，我们所做的只是，嗯，审查该组织，看看该组织是否有已经不再相关的部门。嗯，然后，所授予的合同是否物有所值？事实上，坦率地说，标准并不是特别高。一份合同里到底有没有任何物有所值的部分？嗯，如果有，如果没有，那么我们就向部长提出建议。

然后，部长可以选择，呃，采取那些行动或不采取那些行动，仅此而已。然后，任何作为Doge职能所采取的行动都会发布在Doge网站上，嗯，也会发布到Doge.gov，或者X平台上的@doge账号。所以它是，它是完全透、透明的。嗯，据我所知，我没有见过任何一起甚至有人指控存在利益冲突的情况。

嗯，因为它是，它完全彻底地透明。嗯，那是一个，那么国际层面呢？现在，嗯，我们来想想星链。星链显然是一项非常非常好的互联网服务。世界各地都在争取它。它对乌克兰前线至关重要。

它也获得了更多合同，而且有一些证据表明，一些公司正在允许接入它，因为它们想亲近特朗普政府并释放正确的信号。所以彭博社今天爆料称，南非政府正在绕过有关黑人所有权的规定，以便允许星链，而这件事发生在拉马福萨总统即将访问白宫的前夕。

你认为这是利益冲突吗？不，当然不。首先，你应该质问的是，为什么南非会有种族主义法律？这是第一个问题。这才是你应该抨击的。嗯，南非存在种族主义法律是不恰当的。嗯，纳尔逊·曼德拉是一位伟人，他所提出的整个、整个理念，就是所有、所有种族在南非都应处于平等地位。

那才是正确的做法，而不是用一套种族主义法律取代另一套种族主义法律，那是完全错误的，而且即兴。嗯，所以，这、这项约定就是所有种族都应该受到平等对待。嗯，不应给予任何一方优待。呃，然而南非现在有140项法律给予，呃，一种优、一种基本上，嗯，是给予强烈优待，如果、如果你是南非黑人，而，嗯，其他人则没有。

所以现在我处于这种荒谬的境地：我出生在南非，却无法获得运营星链的许可证，因为我不是黑人。好吧，看起来那差不多，看起来对你来说是正确的。看起来这即将改变。我只是问了你一个问题。请回答。你觉得这合理吗？嗯，那些规定是为了带来，那些规定是为了在南非带来一个经济更加平等的时代。

而且看起来政府已经为你找到了绕过那些规定的办法。我问你一个问题。这是，这是对你的采访。每个人都想听你说。问你的问题吧。是或不是？是或不是？这不是由我来回答的。不过，我确实有一个关于，呃，关于你的政府工作以及节省金额的问题。你为什么喜欢种族主义法律？这不是由我来回答的。得了吧。你不会是想回避问题吧。

你必须回答问题。我的问题，回答。不，你回答我的。我想，我想如果你愿意，我相信你可以直接与南非政府进行那种对话。我想问你关于总额的问题，我简直不敢相信。这可不好。我想问你关于总额的问题。我想问你通过Doge的工作计划节省的总金额。

大选之前，你说至少会达到2万亿美元。目前Doge.gov上的数字是1700亿美元。这是一个很大的变化。那2万亿美元怎么了？嗯，你难道指望它立即实现吗？那么，它会实现吗？因为DOA本应运行到明年7月。我的意思是，你的问题从根本前提上来说就很荒谬。

嗯，你是不是在假设，在某一天，你知道的，几个月内就会立刻节省2万亿美元？不，我完全没有。我只是问，那仍然是你的目标吗？得到这段时间仍然是你的目标吗？考虑到所用的时间，我们难道没有取得很好的进展吗？这正是我在问的。所以，你的目标仍然是从1700亿美元增加到2万亿美元吗？

嗯，Doge的运作能力取决于，呃，政府，而这也包括国会，呃，是否愿意采纳我们的建议。呃，我们不是政府的独裁者，我们是顾问，所以我们可以，我们可以提出建议，而我认为我们迄今取得的进展不可思议。Doge团队完成了不可思议的工作。

嗯，但是，呃，这些节省金额的规模与我们从国会，嗯，以及总体上从政府行政部门获得的支持成正比。嗯，所以我们不是独裁者，我们是顾问。嗯，但到目前为止，就顾问而言，乔治团队值得称赞，嗯，已经取得了，呃，不可思议的进展。

你谈到每天节省40亿美元，但那，那，那无法达到，这一点，而且我认为每个人都能同意，打击政府中的浪费和低效是一件非常好的事情，但如果把它加起来，在Doge的运行期内也达不到2万亿美元。抱歉。每天40亿美元，这每天40亿美元，如果Doge要运行到明年7月，是无法让你达到2万亿美元的。

但你仍然说这是你的目标。所以我们就把它当作红色。Doge是，有，有，有，有什么，我的意思是，我觉得你多少被困在了传统版，呃，记者的NPC对话树里。所以，当我与一个被困在传统记者对话树里的人交谈时，这很困难，因为这就像在和一台电脑说话。嗯，所以，呃，Doge是一个顾问团体。作为一个顾问团体，我们正在尽我们所能，嗯。

呃，作为一个顾问团体，迄今取得的进展非常出色。嗯，我认为在政府顾问团体的历史上，没有任何顾问团体做得更好。嗯，现在，呃，我们，我们，我们不制定法律，也不控制司法部门，也不控制行政部门。我们只是顾问。在这种背景下，我们做得非常好。

嗯，除此之外，我们不能，呃，做，我们不能采取超出这一范围的行动，因为我们不是，呃，政府的某种帝国独裁者。政府有3个分支，它们，呃，在某种程度上反对达到那种水平的成本节省。嗯，但尽管如此，呃，让我们，让我们，让我们不要，呃，批评是否有，呃，4万亿美元，嗯，而是看看这样一个事实：已经节省了1600亿美元，而且还会节省更多。

而且正如我所说，我认为每个人都能同意，在任何政府中削减浪费乃至欺诈，并以负责任的态度使用纳税人的钱，是一件非常好的事情。所以，是的，我看得出来，我看得出来你为那项工作感到自豪。嗯，我确实想问你关于，嗯，美国援助，以及比尔·盖茨前几天发表的评论，而我知道你称他为。是的，他是个巨大的——我知道你已经说过了。

我还想知道，而且我只是——比尔·盖茨以为自己是谁，竟然对儿童福祉发表评论，鉴于他曾经——他对杰弗里·爱泼斯坦来说是一枚硬币？好吧。嗯，他，他，他说他对那些事感到后悔，而我相信那个人。这些年来，他花了很多，他花了很多自己的钱，呃，在世界各地从事慈善事业。

我要问你的是，你有没有查看数据，以核实他所说的削减USAD可能会让数百万人丧生是否可能是对的？呃，有。嗯，我希望他向我们展示任何、任何哪怕一点证据，证明那是真的。那是假的。嗯，我们在削减USAD方面发现的是，顺便说一下，它们并没有全部被削减。我们发现USA ID中哪怕只是稍微有用的部分，都被移交给了国务院。

它们没有，它们没有被删除。它们只是被移交给了国务院。嗯，但是对于USAD和其他组织，有很多很多次，当我们——当他们说，哦，好吧，这将帮助，你知道，呃，儿童，或者这将帮助某种，嗯，呃，疾病根除之类的事情时。

嗯，然后当我们索要任何证据时，嗯，我说，好吧，请让我们与这群儿童取得联系，这样我们就能与他们交谈，并进一步了解他们的问题。我们什么也没得到。

我们，我们不——他们甚至都不试图阻止展示想出一个、一个、一个展示用的孤儿，意思是，有点像，好吧，我们至少能看看几个孩子吗，比如他们，他们在哪里？如果他们有困难，我们想和他们谈谈，也和照顾他们的人谈谈，然后我们得到一些回应，因为我们发现的是数量巨大的、巨大的欺诈和贪腐，让我举这个例子，实际上几乎没有多少能到孩子们手里，如果有任何能到的话——好吧，让，让我向你举这个例子，因为你在南非长大，所以你会很清楚HIV AIDS的影响，而这就是我询问数据的原因。

美国曾领导抗击 HIV/AIDS 的国际治疗和预防工作，并且有一项名为 PEPAR 的倡议，据称该倡议在过去 20 年里挽救了 2600 万人的生命。它是冻结对外援助的一部分。之后又有一项有限豁免。ID 服务受到干扰，联合国援助机构表示，如果永久停止这些服务，到 2029 年将再有 400 万人死于艾滋病相关原因。

所以，如果你看看那个有数据支持的例子，2023年有630,000人死于艾滋病相关疾病，那么也许比尔·盖茨的数据并没有错。可能会有数百万人失去生命。嗯，首先，那个项目，那个、那个、那个艾滋病，呃、呃、嗯，药物项目仍在继续。所以你的基本前提是错的。它仍在继续。现在你还有别的例子吗？不是，埃隆。并没有完整继续。那是错的。并没有完整继续。

那个、那个项目有一项有限豁免，而联合国艾滋病规划署已经表示，此前由 USA ID 资助的服务并非全部仍在继续，所以那就是、那就是为什么、那就是为什么我向你举这个例子。好吧，哪些没有得到资助？我现在就解决。好的，嗯，事实上，它们都列在联合国、联合国艾滋病规划署的网站上，所以你可以在那里看到，但它们大多与、大多与预防有关，例如推广一种，嗯，名为 Glenn Capavir 的药物，它、它被誉为多年来抗击艾滋病方面最大的突破之一，是去年推出的。

所以，如果你或许……我相信 UNA，你作为……如果你能重新审视此事，他们会很高兴。是的。嗯，嗯，如果、如果、如果、如果这事实上是真的，而我对此表示怀疑，那么我们会解决它。好，行。嗯，那么最后是政治问题，关于你的政治影响力，我想知道你是否已经决定，要在，呃，即将到来的中期选举中花多少钱。

是这样吗，你、你在上一次美国选举中花的钱，比你3年前在这里发言时设想的多得多。未来的选举中，你还会继续、继续投入那种规模的资金吗？嗯，我想，嗯，就政治支出而言，嗯，我今后会少花很多。为什么？我想我已经做得够多了。是、是因为遭到了反弹吗？嗯，如果我今后看到有理由进行政治支出，我就会这么做。

我目前看不到理由。好的。那美国以外的政治影响力呢？你多久和普京总统交谈一次？我不和普京总统交谈。你从未和普京总统交谈过？嗯，我、我大约5年前曾和他参加过一次视频通话。那是我和普京总统、总统交谈的唯一一件事。哦，你一定……我明白了。相信传统。我说……事实上，我听过你、我听过你谈论这件事。

例如，在你的西点军校演讲中，你说：“哦，我向普京总统发起挑战，要，呃，嗯，是掰手腕吗？”而且我知道《华尔街日报》报道过你的，呃，报道过的谈话。如果你、如果你说除那一次之外，那些谈话都没有发生，我会把那当成红色。地球上还有比《华尔街日报》更糟糕的出版物吗？我都不会用它来垫我的笼子接伞降物。

嗯，那、那、那份报纸是世界上最糟糕的报纸。嗯，而且，还有，如果你知道，如果有一份报纸应该支持资本主义，那就是名字里带有华尔街的那一份。呃，但它并不支持。所以我、我对《华尔街日报》的评价低到了极点。完、完全是胡说八道。而你显然相信你写过的、你在那些报纸上读到的那个部落。

我阅读、我阅读的范围非常广，我向你提出这些问题，是为了让你有机会回应，而你正在回应，对此，我们都很感谢能听到你的回答。好的，我们、我们的时间到了。所以你提到了、你提到了我发起挑战，我、我确实是在 X 平台上这么做的。我向弗拉基米尔·普京发起单挑挑战，事关那个，但我没有和他说话。那是 X 平台上的一则帖子。

这就是、这就是我问你的原因，而你已经、你已经作了澄清和解释。谢谢。这、这就是为什么我会询问你是否有过那些被报道的谈话，而、而你已经说，除了一次视频通话外，并没有。好的。典型的传统媒体谎言。好的。听着，实际上我本来想让 Grock 说最后一句话。

嗯，因为当我问 Grok，你面临的最艰难挑战是什么时，它说：“在金融、监管和公共关系危机之中，管理多项高风险事业所带来的压力。”我想知道你是否认同这种描述，以及你是否确实认为这是你人生中关键的一年。嗯，每一年在某种程度上都很关键，今年也没有什么不同。

嗯，所以我的意思是，就今年可能会完成的有趣事情而言，呃，让星舰，呃，实现完全可重复使用，呃，也就是说我们要同时接住助推器和飞船；这将是历史上第一枚完全可重复使用的轨道火箭，也将是一项意义深远的突破，是让生命遍及多个星球、并最终成为太空航行文明所必需的关键突破。ation。

嗯，我们还有 Neurolink，它现在已经帮助了5名，呃，患者，呃，恢恢复，嗯，能力，嗯，使用心灵感应植入物，他们只需思考就能控制计算机。嗯，我们将，嗯，为我们的首位，嗯，呃，患者恢复失明，呃，用我们的盲视植入物恢复、恢复视力，时间会在今年年底或明年年初。

嗯，事实上，第一位患者可能会在阿联酋，因为我们与阿联酋以及那里的克利夫兰诊所诊所有合作关系。嗯，那个，嗯，我我认为在 AI 方面，我们已经接近你可以称为 AGI，嗯，或或或数字超级智能的东西。嗯，我认为我们会看到，我们正在、我们正在看到这里的数字超级智能爆发式发展。

嗯，然后在 Tesla，我们将于下个月在奥斯汀推出无监督自动驾驶，基本上就是车内无人的自动驾驶汽车。所以，这这肯定是重要的一年。嗯，也还有许多其他事情正在、正在、正在推进中。好的。我我首先且最重要的是一名技术专家。埃隆·马斯克，非常感谢您来到卡塔尔经济论坛与我们交流。谢谢。

Hey, this is David Papadopoulos, host of Elon, Inc. Uh we have for you this week um our interview in Cutter uh that our colleague Michelle Hussein did with Elon himself. Here is that interview in its entirety right now. And you should also know that our episode, our Elon Inc. episode this week is all about me and Max breaking down the interview and dissecting it, the highlights, the low lightss, etc. , etc. Enjoy. Hello everyone and Elon Musk.

Welcome to Qatar Economic Forum. How are you? Thank you for having me. I'm fine. How are you? Very well, thank you. And very pleased to have you with us. You know, among those here in the audience in DHA are some you will know, people who have backed you financially over the years. Since you last spoke here in 2022, a lot has changed in your life.

You're not only running multiple companies, you were doing that then, but now you also have a role in government. So, first of all, I hope you won't mind if from time to time I have to move you from one topic to another because we have a lot to cover in the time we have. That would be all right. Okay. Well, let's start then with exactly the fact that you now have this combination of being a CEO and having a role as a government adviser.

Tell me about your week. How does it work? What's the split of your time? Well, I travel a lot. So, I was in Silicon Valley yesterday morning. I was in LA yesterday evening. I'm in Austin right now. I'll be in DC tomorrow. I'll be there uh after having dinner with the president tomorrow night, I believe. Um and then uh whole bunch of cabinet secretary meetings and then uh back to Silon Valley on Thursday night.

But I mean the balance of your time is it is it well clearly it's a lot but is it still the case as you said a while ago that it's about one to two days a week on your government work. Yeah that's correct. And what does that mean for your corporate life? Because if we start with Tesla the company has suffered in recent months what you've called blowback.

So, what is your plan for turning that around, the declining sales picture, and by what stage do you think you're going to be able to turn it around? Oh, it's already turned around. Give me some evidence for that. I've just been looking at the sales figures for Europe in April, which show very significant declines in the big markets. Uh Europe is our weakest market. We're strong everywhere else.

Um so uh our sales are are doing doing well at this point. Um we don't anticipate any any meaningful sales shortfall and um the you know the obviously the stock market recognizes that since we're now back over a trillion dollars in market cap. So um clearly the market is aware of the situation. So it's it's already turned around. But sales still down compared to this time last year in Europe. In Europe. Okay.

And yes, but but that's that's true of of all manufacturers. There's no exceptions. Does that mean that you're not going to be able Does that mean European market is quite weak? Okay. But you would acknowledge, wouldn't you, that what you are facing, okay, let's just take it as Europe. What you are facing is a significant problem. This Tesla was an incredibly aspirational brand. People identified with it.

It saw it, they saw it being at the forefront of the climate crisis. And now people are driving around with stickers in their cars saying, "I bought this before we knew Elon was crazy." And there also people are buying buying it because uh Elon's crazy or however they may view it. Um so yes, we've lost some sales perhaps on the left, but we've gained them on the right.

uh the sales numbers at this point uh are strong and uh we we see no problem with demand. So what the and I mean you you can just look at the stock price the the the if you want the best inside information the um stock market uh analysts have that and um a stock wouldn't be uh trading near all-time highs if uh it was not if things weren't in good shape. They're fine. Don't worry about it. Okay.

I I was citing sales figures ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra rather than share price. Well, tell me then how committed you are to Tesla. Do you see yourself and are you committed to still being the chief executive of Tesla in 5 years time? Yes. No doubt about that at all. Well, no, I might die. Okay, short of that. I can't see you if I'm dead. So there's a slight mode.

Does does that mean that the value of your pay doesn't have any bearing on your decision? Um well that's not really a subject subject of discussion in this forum. Um the I think obviously there should be compensation for if there's if something incredible is done that compensation should match um the that something incredible was done.

Um but I I'm I'm confident that uh whatever the um whatever some activist posing as a judge in Delaware happens to do will not affect the future compensation. This is the judge who twice struck down the $56 billion pay package that was that was awarded to you. I think the value on the basis on the current value of stock options. Yeah. Not a judge. Not a judge. The activist who is cosplaying a judge in a Halloween costume. Okay.

That that's your characterization. Um I think the val on the current value of stock options. I think the actual justice according to the law on the current value of stock options I think the value of that pay package stands at about hundred billion dollars. Are you saying you are relaxed about the value of your future pay package?

Your decision to be committed to Tesla for the next 5 years as long as you are still with us on this planet is completely independent of pay. No, it's not independent. So pay is a relevant factor then to your commitment to Tesla. Um sufficient voting control such that um I cannot be ousted by activist investors is what matters to me. And I've said this publicly many times. Um but let's not have this whole thing be a discussion of my alleged pay.

It's not a money thing. It's a a reasonable control thing over the future of the company. Especially if we're building uh millions, potentially billions of humanoid robots. Um, I can't be sitting there u uh and wanting to get tossed out by um for political reasons by activists. That would be unacceptable. That's all that matters. No, let's move on. Okay. Well, just one question. Let's move on.

Well, one question before we move on to other companies, which is that I wonder if some of what you've has happened to Tesla in the last few months, did you take it personally? Yes. And did it make you regret any of or think twice about your political endeavors because it is I did I did what needed to be done. Uh the the violent antibody reaction um and I'm I'm not someone who's ever committed violence.

Um, and yet, uh, massive violence was committed against my companies. Massive violence was threatened against me. Who are these people? Why would they do that? How wrong can they be? They're on the wrong They're on the wrong side of history. And that's an evil thing to do. To go and damage some po innocent person's car to threaten to kill me. What's wrong with these people? have not harmed anyone. So, something needs to be done about them.

And a number of them are going to prison and they deserve it. And more will you're you're referring to the attacks on Tesla showrooms, but I think bullets into showrooms and burning down cars is unacceptable. Yeah. Those people will go to prison and the people that funded them and organized them will also go to prison. Don't worry.

But wouldn't you you wouldn't wouldn't but wouldn't wouldn't you acknowledge that some of the people who turned against Tesla in Europe were were upset at your politics and very few of them would have been violent in any way. They just objected to to what they saw you say or do politically. Well, it's certainly fine to object to political things, but it's not it's not fine to resort uh to violence and hanging someone in effigy and death threats.

Um that's obviously not okay. Um uh you know uh that's absurd. Um that is uh in no way justifiable at all in any way, shape or form. And and uh some of the the legacy media nonetheless have sought to justify it which is unconscionable. Shame on them. Let's talk about your other companies then and other business areas.

SpaceX, I saw that you said in a speech at the West Point uh Military Academy recently that the future of warfare is AI and drones and obviously defense is an increasingly booming sector with the state of the world at the moment. Do you see SpaceX moving into weaponized drones? [Laughter] you certainly ask interesting questions uh that are impossible to answer. Um so no SpaceX is uh it's it's the space launch leader. So SpaceX doesn't do drones.

Uh SpaceX builds rockets, satellites, and internet terminals. Um so but SpaceX has has a a very dominant position in space launch. So of of the mass launch to orbit this year, SpaceX will probably do 90%. Um, China will do the rema half half of the remaining amount, so 5% and the rest of the world, including the rest of the US, will do about 5%.

So SpaceX will do about 10 times as much as the rest of the world combined or 20 times as much as China, which is and China is doing actually a very impressive job. Um the reason for this is that we are putting into into orbit the largest satellite constellation the world has ever seen by far. Um so I think at this point about maybe approaching 80% of all active satellites in orbit are SpaceX.

Um and they're providing global high high bandwidth global connectivity uh throughout the world. In fact this connection is on a SpaceX connection.

So I think this is a very good thing um because it means that we can um provide lowcost high bandwidth internet to parts of the world that don't have it or it's very expensive and I think the single biggest thing you can do to lift people out of poverty and help them is giving them um an internet connection um because once you have the internet connection you can learn anything for free on the internet and you can also sell your goods and services to the global market um and um once you have knowledge um by the internet and the ability to engage in commerce um that this is going to greatly improve quality of life for people throughout the world and it has um and I just like to thank anyone in the audience who may have been helpful in you know um with

Starlink and and getting it to approved in their country and I think it's doing a lot of good and the countries that have approved it which is I think at this point 130 countries are very happy with Um I I I don't currently anticipate SpaceX getting into the weapons business.

That's certainly that's not an aspiration. We're frequent we're frequently asked uh to do to do weapons programs, but we have thus far declined. Do you envisage SpaceX or indeed Starlink as a separate entity publicly listing in the near future or at all? Um, it's possible that Starlink uh may go public at some point in the future and what would be the what would be the time frame? What kind of time frame you consider? I mean, no rush.

I'm no I'm in no rush to go public. um the the you know public is I guess a way to um you know potentially make more money but at the expense of a lot of public company overhead and inevitably um a whole bunch of lawsuits which are very annoying.

Um, so really something needs to be done about the shareholder shareholder derivative lawsuits uh in the US uh because it allows uh uh plaintiffs law firms who don't represent the shareholders to pretend that they represent the shareholders by getting a puppet plaintiff with a few shares uh to initiate a massive lawsuit against the company.

And the irony being that extreme irony uh that uh even if the class they purport to represent were to vote that they don't want the lawsuit, the lawsuit would still continue. So how can it be a an a class action representing a class if the class vote against it? And that's the bizarre situation we've got in the US. It needs it's a dire need of reform and as as anyone who's run a public company experienced this.

It's an absurd situation that needs to change. Well, do you think Donald Trump might change it? You've certainly got his ear. I imagine that you've put this to him. Is this something you're trying to change before any Starlink IPO? Well, it would it would need a law to be passed. Um the the trouble being that you need 60 Senator Senate votes and the Democrats um will vote against it.

Um the um the the the the plaintiff's bar is I believe the second largest contributor to the Democratic party. That's the that's the issue. At the state level, this can be solved. And and I should say Texas recently passed a law which um at this at least the state level made much more reasonable because you have to get at least one in 33 shareholders to agree that they are part of a class of shareholders 3%.

This is a this will be will be really help with privileged lawsuits. Okay. Um let's talk about AI which is in so many of your businesses and in all our worlds in different ways. It's one of the big changes the development of generative AI since you last spoke um to this forum three years ago. You're in this space of course um with Grock which almost everyone will know.

You co-founded Open AI and then left and you've obviously got a legal battle um with Open AI and Sam Orman. wonder if you could say something about the status of that because you were together in Saudi Arabia with the president last week um with Sam Orman together in the same place at the same time was in the in the neighborhood. Okay. So does does that mean you are pushing ahead with the lawsuit against open AI? Yes.

So, look, I came I came up with the name OpenAI as an open-source um and as a nonprofit and I funded AI OpenAI for the first roughly $50 million um and um it was intended to be a nonprofit uh open-source company and now it is they're trying to change that for their own financial benefit uh into a for-profit company that is closed source.

So, this would be like let's say you um you funded a a nonprofit to help preserve the Amazon rainforest, but instead of doing that, they became a lumber company, chopped down the forest, and sold the wood. You'd be like, "Wait a second, that's not what I funded." That's open AI. They've made some changes to their corporate structure though, haven't they, since in in recognition of what of what you've said.

And no, that's just what they told the media. Okay. Um part they have part they have partly walked back their plan to restructure the business. I guess that's made no difference to how you feel about it. So you determined to see them in court. Of course. Okay. Well that that's certainly going to be one to watch.

I also wanted to ask you about AI and regulation because when you were here last talking to John Mikkelthweight, you had some pretty strong words about the risk that AI poses and you said that you really felt what the US was missing was a federal AI regulator that you know something along the lines of the Food and Drug Administration or the Federal Aviation Administration.

Now you're clearly now in a zone where you're more you're more on the cutting regulation side than wanting new regulators. So has your view changed on the need for an AI regulator? Well, it's not that I don't think there should be regulators. Um you can think of regulators like referees on the on the field in sports.

Um there should be some number of referees, but that you shouldn't have so many referees that you can't kick the ball without hitting one. Um so um in many in most uh apps uh fields in the US the the regulatory burden has grown over time to the point where it's like having more referees than than players on the field. Um so um and this is a natural consequence of an extended period of prosperity. It's very important to uh appreciate this.

This has happened throughout history. When you have an extended period of prosperity with no existential war, there's no there's no um cleansing function for uh the for for unnecessary um laws and regulations.

So what happens is that every year more laws and more regulations are passed because you know legislators are going to legislate, regulators are going to regulate um and you will get the steady pile of more and more laws and regulations over time until everything is illegal. And let me give you an example of of a of a truly absurd situation. Um, under the Biden administration, SpaceX um, was sued for not hiring asylum seekers in the US.

Now, the problem is it's actually illegal for SpaceX under ITAR, international traffic and arms regulations to hire anyone who is not a permanent resident of the United States because the the premise being that they will take advanced rocket technology and return to their home country if they're not a permanent resident.

So, we're simultaneously uh in a situation where it is illegal to hire asylum seekers and is also uh illegal to hire asylum seekers and the Biden's Department of Justice chose to prosecute us despite both paths being illegal. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. But my question was specifically about a regulator for AI, which you said 3 years ago was needed. And you said we need to be proactive on the regulation of AI rather than reactive.

Have you changed your mind on that? No, of course not. What what No, of course not. What I'm saying is that there should be some referees on the field, a few a few referees, but you shouldn't have a field jam-packed with referees uh such that you cannot kick a ball in any direction without hitting one.

So the the the the fields that have been around for a long time such as automotive um so aerospace uh you know uh the sort of food and drug industries are overregulated but the new fields like artificial intelligence are underregulated. In fact there is no regulator at So, so there should be one. Do you still think that? Yes.

I'm simply saying, which I think is just basic common sense, that you that you want to have at least you you want to have a few referees on the field. You don't want to have an army of referees. Um, but you want to have a few referees on on any given field in any given sport or even any given arena, industrial arena. Um, to ensure help that public safety um is taken care of.

Um, but you don't want to have so so there's a there's a there's a a proper number of referees. Like like I said, it's actually very easy to visualize this when compared to sports. If the if the whole field is packed with with referees, that would look absurd. Um, but if there were no referees at all, your game's not going to be as good. Okay. So, let's then talk about your new world, your your role advising government.

You are in this unique and unprecedented position of having billions of dollars worth of contracts with the federal government yourself mostly through SpaceX and also now an insidider's knowledge of it because of Doge. Can you see that there is a conflict of interest or a potential conflict of interest in broad terms just through that very fact?

Um I I don't think so actually there have been many advisers in uh throughout history and in the US government and others who have had economic interests. Um and I am simply an adviser. I don't have a formal power. Um and that's it. Uh the president can choose to uh accept my advice or not and that's that's how it goes.

Um if there's a single contract that uh you know any of my companies have received that people think is somehow not uh was was awarded improperly um it would immediately be front page news um to say the least um and and if if if I hadn't mentioned it certainly my competitors would. So if you're not seeing that um then clearly there's not a conflict of interest.

Um the uh yeah um there's another way though to look at it that for example you have many competitors whether it's companies like Boeing or companies who would like to do more of the kind of work you do for NASA, Blue Origin, Rocket Lab and because Doge is in every federal government department, you or people who work for Doge and and you are the driving force behind it have an insight into those companies affairs.

and those companies relationships with the federal government. No, all we do is we um review uh the organization to see if if the organization has uh departments that are no longer relevant. Um and and then are the contracts that that are being awarded good value for money? In fact, frankly, the bar is not particularly high. Is there any value for money in a contract? Um and if there's if there isn't then we make recommendations to the secretary.

The secretary can then choose to uh take those actions or not take those actions and that's it. And then any action that that that is as a function of Doge is posted to the Doge website um and to the Doge. gov or at at doge handle on the Xplatform. So it's it's complete trans transparency. Um and I have not seen any case where uh to the best of my knowledge there's even been an accusation of conflict.

Um because it is it's completely and utterly transparent. Um that's a and what about the international dimension now? Um let's think about Starlink. Starink is obviously a very very good internet service. It's sought after all over the world. It's critical to the front line in Ukraine.

It has also had more contracts coming its way and there is some evidence that companies are allowing access to it because they want to be close to the Trump administration and send the right signal. So Bloomberg broke news today that the South African government is working around the rules on black ownership in order to allow Starink and that is being done on the eve of the visit that President Ramaposa is going to make to the White House.

Do you recognize that as a conflict of interest? No, of course not. First of all, you should be questioning why is there why are there racist laws in South Africa? That's the first problem. That's what you should be attacking. Um it's improper for there be racist laws in South Africa. Um the whole whole idea with what Nelson Mandela, who was a great man, proposed was that all all races should be on an equal footing in South Africa.

That's the right thing to do, not to replace one set of racist laws with another set of racist laws, which is utterly wrong and improv. Um so the that's that's the deal that all races should be treated equally. Um and there should be no preference given to one or the other. Uh whereas there are now 140 laws in South Africa that give u a pre that basically um are give strong preference to to if if you're black South African and um not otherwise.

And so now I'm in this absurd situation where I was born in South Africa but cannot get a license to operate in Starlink because I'm not black. Well, it looks like that's about its looks like right to you. Looks like that's about to change. I just asked you a question. Please answer. Does that seem right to you? Well, those rules were designed to bring those rules were designed to bring about an era of more economic equality in South Africa.

And it looks like the government has found a way around those rules for you. I ask you a question. This is this is your interview. Everyone wants to hear from you. Ask your question. Yes or no? Yes or no? Not not for me to answer. I have got a question for you about uh about your government work though and the amount of savings. Why do you like racist laws? This is not for me to answer. Come on now. You wouldn't be trying to dodge a question.

You have to ask question. My question answer No, you answer mine. I think I think if you I'm sure you can have that conversation directly with the South African government if you want to. I want to ask you about the total I can't believe it. That's not good. I want to ask you about the total amount. I want to ask you about the total amount that you're planning to save through Doge's work.

Before the election, you said it was going to be at least$2 trillion. The number currently on Doge. gov is $170 billion. That's a big change. What happened to the two trillion? Well, would you expect it to happen immediately? Well, is it going to happen? Because DOA is supposed to run till next July. I mean your question is absurd in in its fundamental premise.

Um are you assuming that that on day you know within a few months there's an instant two trillion saved? No I'm not at all. I'm just asking is that still your aim then? Is it still your aim to get the amount of time? Have we not made good progress given the amount of time? That's exactly what I'm asking. So is it still your aim to go from 170 billion to two trillion?

Um the the ability of Doge to operate is a function of whether uh the government and this includes the Congress uh is willing to take our advice. Uh we are not the dictators of the government, we are the adviserss and so we can we can advise and the progress we've made thus far I think is incredible. Doge team has done incredible work.

Um but uh the magnitude of this the savings is proportionate to the support we get from Congress um and from the uh executive branch of the government in general. Um so we're not the dictators, we are the advisers. Um but thus far for advisers we've the George team to their credit um has made uh incredible progress.

You've talked about4 billion dollars a day being saved, but that that that won't get which is and I think everyone can agree that combating waste and inefficiency in government is a very good thing, but if you add that up, it's not going to get to two trillion over the lifetime of Doge. I'm sorry. The 4 billion the four billion a day if Doge is going to run till next July is not going to get you to2 trillion dollars.

But you still say it's your aim. So we'll take that as red. There's there's there's there's what doge I mean I feel you're somewhat trapped in the uh NPC dialogue tree of a traditional ver uh journalist. So it's difficult when I'm conversing with someone who's trapped in the dialogue tree of a conventional journalist because it's like talking to a computer. Um so uh Doge is an advisory group. We are doing the best we can um as an advisory group.

Uh the progress made thus far as an advisory group is excellent. Um I don't think any advisory group has done better in the history of advisory groups of the government. Um now uh we we we do not make the laws nor do we control the the judiciary nor do we control the executive branch. We are simply advisers. In that context we are doing very well.

Um beyond that we cannot uh do we cannot take action beyond that because we are not u some sort of imperial dictator of the government. There are three branches of government that uh that are to some degree opposed to that level of cost savings. Um but nonetheless uh let's let's let's not uh criticize whether there's uh 4 trillion um and instead look at the fact that 160 billion has been saved and more will be saved too.

And as I said I think everyone can agree that cutting waste and indeed fraud in any government and being responsible with taxpayers money is a very good thing. So yes, I can see I can see that you're proud of that work. Um I do want to ask you about um US aid and the comments that Bill Gates made the other day which and I know that you called him. Yeah, he's a huge I know you you've said that already.

I wondered also and I'm just who does who does Bill Gates think he is to make comments about the welfare of children given that he was he for a coin to Jeffrey Epste? Okay. Well, he's he's he's he said he regrets those and I trust that guy. He spent a lot he spent a lot of his own money on uh on philanthropy around the world over the years.

My question to you is, have you looked at the data to check if he might be right that the cuts to USAD might cost millions of lives? Uh yes. Um, I'd like him to show us any any evidence whatsoever that that is true. It's false. Um, the what what we found with USAD cuts, and by the way, they haven't all been cut. The the parts of USA ID that we found to be uh even slightly useful were transferred to the State Department.

They've not they've not been deleted. They've simply been transferred to the State Department. Um but many many times over with USAD and other organizations when we've when they've said oh well this is going to help you know uh children or it's going to help some um uh disease eradication or something like that.

Um and then when we ask for any evidence whatsoever um I say well please connect us with this group of children so we can talk to them and understand more about their issue. We get nothing.

We we don't they don't even try to prevent show come up with a with a with a show orphan meaning like it's sort of like well can we at least see a few kids like where where are they if they're in trouble we'd like to talk to them and talk to their caregivers and then we get something as a response because it's what we find is an enormous amount of of fraud and graft let me put this example very little of it actually gets to the kids if anything at Okay, let let me put this example to you because you grew up in South Africa so you'll know the impact of HIV AIDS well and this is why I asked about the data.

The US led on international efforts to combat HIV AIDS treatment prevention and there's an initiative called PEPAR which is credited with saving 26 million lives in the last 20 years. It was part of the foreign aid freeze. Then there was a limited waiver. ID services are disrupted and UN aid says if permanently discontinued there will be another 4 million AIDS related deaths by 2029.

So if you look at that example which is backed up by data in 2023 630,000 people died of AIDS related illnesses then perhaps Bill Gates's figures are not wrong. Millions of lives could be lost. Um I first of all the program the the the AIDS uh uh um medication uh program is continuing. So your fundamental premise is wrong. It is continuing. Now do you have another example? Not Elon. Not in its entirety. That is false. Not in its entirety.

the the program there's a limited waiver and UN aids have said that not all of the services that were previously funded by USA ID are continuing so that's that's why that's why I put that example to you okay well which ones aren't being funded I'll fix it right now for okay well actually they're all on the UN UN aids website so you'll be able to see them but mostly they are to do with mostly they are to do with prevention and for example the roll out of a drug um called Glenn Capavir which which was hailed as one of the biggest breakthroughs against AIDS for many years which came out last year.

So if you are perhaps I'm sure UNA you as would be delighted if you're able to look at that again. Yes. Well well if if if if in fact this is true which I doubt it is then we'll fix it. Okay fine. Um so finally political your political influence I wondered whether you have decided yet how much you're going to spend on uh the the upcoming midterms.

Is it you you spent a lot more money on the last US election than you envisaged when you were speaking here three years ago. Are you going to continue to to spend at that kind of level on future elections? Um I think um in terms of political spending um I'm going to do a lot less in the future. And why is that? I think I've done enough. Is it is it because of blowback? Well, if I see a reason to do political spending in the future, I will do it.

I do not currently see a reason. Okay. What about political influence beyond the US? How often do you speak to President Putin? I don't speak to President Putin. You've never spoken to President Putin? Um I I was on a video call with him once about 5 years ago. That's the only thing I speak to President President Putin. Oh, you must I get it. Believe the legacy. I speak Actually, I've heard you I've heard you speak about it.

For example, in your West Point speech, you said, "Oh, I challenged President Putin to uh um to was it an arm wrestle?" And I know the Wall Street Journal has reported your uh reported conversations. If you're if you're saying they haven't happened other than once, I'll take that as red. If is is there a worst publication on the face of the earth than the Wall Street Journal? I wouldn't use that to to line up my cage for paratroppings.

Um that that that newspaper is the worst newspaper in the world. Um, and there's and if you know if there's one newspaper that should be pro- capitalist, it's the one with Wall Street in the name. U, but it isn't. So I I have the the very lowest opinion of the Wall Street Journal. AB absolute nonsense. And you clearly believe the tribe that you've written that you've read in those papers.

I read I read very widely and I'm putting these questions to you so that you have an opportunity to respond to them which you are and and for which we're all grateful to hear your responses. Okay, we are we are out of time. So you mentioned you mentioned me challenging I I did so on on the X platform. I challenged Vladimir Putin to single combat over the but I didn't talk to him. That was a post on the ex platform.

That's why that's why I asked you and you've and you've clarified and explained. Thank you. That's that's why I was asking whether you have had reported conversations and and you've said you haven't other than a video call. Okay. Typical legacy media lies. Okay. Listen, I actually thought I might give Grock the last word.

Um, because when I asked Grock what your hardest challenge is, it said, "The strain of managing multiple highstake ventures amid financial, regulatory, and public relations crisis." And I wondered whether you recognize that characterization and whether you do think that this is a pivotal year in your life. Well, every year has been somewhat pivotal and this one's no different.

Um so I mean in terms of interesting things that probably are accomplished this year uh the getting Starship uh to be fully reusable uh so that the that we we catch both the booster and the ship which would be the first fully reusable orbital rocket ever in history which is would be a profound breakthrough as the essential breakthrough necessarily to make life multilanetary and ultimately become a space fairing civilization. ation.

Um we've got Neurolink which is um now helped five uh patients uh res restore um capability um using the telepathy implant where they're able to control a computer simply by thinking. Um we'll be um doing our first um uh patient to restore blind uh to restore to restore sight with our blind sight uh implant which is either end of this year or early next.

Um in fact that might that first patient might be in UAE since we have a relationship with UAE and the Cleveland Clinic clinic there. Um the um I I think on the AI front we are close to what you might call AGI um or or or digital super intelligence. Um I think we'll see we are we are seeing an explosion in digital super intelligence here.

Um, and then we've got at Tesla the what we'll be launching unsupervised autonomy, basically self-driving cars with no one in them in Austin next month. So, it's it's a big year for sure. Um, many other things on the in the in the works, too. Okay. I'm I'm technologist first and foremost. Elon Musk, thank you very much for joining us here at Qatar Economic Forum. Thank you.