YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → The full-length interview with Elon Musk | The Economist

The full-length interview with Elon Musk | The Economist — Transcript

by The Economist · 15,184 words · 2,702 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00Elon Musk, thank you so much for joining
0:01me on this side of it. Thank you for
0:02having us here at Tesla Giga.
0:05Um it is really hard to introduce you
0:08without using superlatives. I mean, you
0:09are doing, I think, more to build the
0:12future than literally anybody alive
0:13right now.
0:14>> I'm doing a lot of building in general.
0:15I'm
0:15>> You're doing a lot of building.
0:17>> builder, I suppose. I just like building
0:19things.
0:19>> You are, but you're building I mean,
0:21>> You know, run around building things all
0:24day long.
0:24>> You run around building a lot of things.
0:26You pioneered electric vehicles, you
0:27revolutionized space travel, you've got
0:29a cutting-edge AI model now, humanoid
0:32robots. Can we start this conversation
0:35by you putting all of this together?
0:37Tell me what the world's going to be
0:38like in, let's say, 10 years if you
0:40succeed.
0:41>> 10 years, so we're talking 2036.
0:43>> Yep.
0:45Hopefully, we'll both be around.
0:46>> Hopefully, yes.
0:47>> can we can we
0:47>> Uh probably. Most likely, we will be.
0:51Um it it's hard to imagine a future that
0:53where there's not
0:55an overall overwhelming amount of
0:57artificial intelligence.
0:59Meaning, I can 10 years, I would expect
1:01artificial intelligence to be
1:03far greater than the sum of human
1:05intelligence.
1:06Like far greater.
1:08Um in fact, I think
1:10AI may exceed the sum of human
1:12intelligence
1:14in about in around 5 years.
1:16>> In 5 years?
1:17>> Roughly 5 years is my guess.
1:19Um
1:21so
1:23there really won't be anything that AI
1:25can't do better than humans apart from
1:28being human, perhaps.
1:29>> At a more prosaic level, what will life
1:32be like?
1:35>> The most likely outcome
1:37is an age of amazing abundance uh where
1:43anyone can have anything they can think
1:45of.
1:46This is this is uh this may sound
1:48preposterous, but
1:50well, here we are in 2026.
1:52Let's see where we stand in 2036. Now,
1:54of course, there are things that could
1:56uh derail this, like a a massive global
1:59thermonuclear war or something like
2:01that.
2:02Um
2:03but assuming that there's not World War
2:04III,
2:06uh I think
2:07I think we're headed for an age of
2:09amazing abundance. So, this is, I guess,
2:11a message of
2:13of optimism
2:14and uh excitement about the future.
2:18>> So, we'll talk about the abundance in a
2:19second, but just on a very prosaic
2:21matter, how are your companies going to
2:23be making money? Because when you In the
2:25In the SpaceX IPO prospectus, it it
2:27looked as though the overwhelming amount
2:29of the revenue would be coming from AI,
2:31from Grok, really. It won't be
2:33transporting things to space as SpaceX
2:36is now doing. What is What will your
2:38companies be doing in 10 years?
2:41And how will they make money?
2:44>> Well, you can really think of the
2:45economy as
2:47uh digital and physical intelligence.
2:50Um
2:52so,
2:53what we have right now advancing very
2:55rapidly is digital intelligence,
2:57obviously, with with AI that is
3:00uh
3:01it seems that well, almost with every
3:02passing week, uh there are are more AI
3:05breakthroughs. It It can do something
3:07amazing that it couldn't do before.
3:10Uh but it's still somewhat confined to
3:11the digital realm.
3:13It doesn't have
3:15end effectors.
3:16You need the end effectors in the form
3:17of
3:18humanoid robotics, um human In you need
3:21you need it basically a lots of bots in
3:24a nutshell. You need lots of bots.
3:25Um
3:26and then you can go from
3:28um
3:29intelligence manifesting itself only
3:32digitally to
3:34shaping atoms.
3:37Um
3:38and you say, "What What What is an
3:39economy?" An economy is
3:41um
3:42the production of goods and provision of
3:44services.
3:46And if you have vast numbers of
3:49robots
3:51uh with uh
3:52vast amounts of digital intelligence,
3:54you have a
3:55sort of
3:57a quasi quasi-infinite
4:00economy.
4:02So so this is
4:03this is really
4:05the the the future is going to be very
4:06very different from the past. There's
4:09there's no
4:10um
4:11there's no analogy or metaphor that I
4:13think
4:15illustrates the magnitude of change that
4:17we're going to experience here.
4:18>> I I I understand that and I'm I'm also
4:21trying to kind of figure out what that
4:22world would look like but but in some
4:25way you have
4:25>> It's going to be a pretty incredible
4:27>> Yeah, well we'll also do there were some
4:29risks too. We'll come to those. We'll
4:30come to those but just on on on how then
4:34you make money cuz in the end people are
4:35buying your shares cuz cuz they expect
4:37you to make money.
4:38>> I'll I'll I'll make another prediction.
4:39Money won't matter in 2036.
4:42>> You're watching my interview with Elon
4:44Musk. If you want to get early access to
4:46other interviews, subscribe to The
4:48Economist by clicking the link above.
4:50Now, back to the interview.
4:52>> [laughter]
4:53>> I'm not sure that the people who bought
4:54your shares think that money won't
4:56matter in 2036.
4:58>> what do you want money for?
5:01Are you what you want money for? Goods
5:03and services.
5:03>> Yeah.
5:04>> Right? You want money for
5:06obviously food, housing, transport,
5:08entertainment.
5:09Um
5:10well, if that is so abundant
5:13that uh there's more
5:16that the robots and AI are providing
5:18more goods and services than you than
5:20any human could possibly consume,
5:23what do you need money for
5:25in that case?
5:25>> But you're you're creating these robots.
5:27Are you then selling
5:28>> then you'll need money, sure.
5:29>> Are you are you selling these robots?
5:31Are you selling human humanoid robots or
5:33are you producing goods and services
5:36with the humanoid robots that you
5:37control?
5:40I give you the leave I struck so
5:41>> I think I think I think I would probably
5:43be
5:45And would be an exercise in vanity to
5:47for me to think that I would be
5:48controlling
5:50a super genius AI that is vastly smarter
5:52than me.
5:54I think what we can and should try to do
5:56is to make sure that the AI
5:58has good values, that it cares about
6:02humanity, and that
6:05uh it wants wants us to be happy and
6:07prosper.
6:08Um
6:10I think it probably will be. Um
6:13My
6:14what my biological neural net tells me
6:16is that the most important thing for the
6:18for AI safety is to be maximally truth
6:20seeking and curious.
6:22Uh if that's the case, uh I think it
6:25will foster humanity.
6:28>> So, let's unpack that. You're sure that
6:30humans will no longer be in control in
6:3210 years' time.
6:34>> I think it is unlikely. Um in the same
6:36way that if the difference in
6:38intelligence between AI and humans is
6:42vastly greater than the difference in
6:43intelligence between AI and chimpanzees,
6:46it's hard to imagine
6:48that the chimpanzees would be in charge.
6:51>> I'm really struck by what you're saying.
6:53>> um
6:54an evolved form of chimpanzee. So, it
6:58wasn't that long ago that we were
6:59swinging through the trees, eating
7:01bananas,
7:02um in the jungle. And we still eat
7:05bananas, by the way. We do. And we
7:07still, you know, bananas
7:08>> sometimes swing through trees as well.
7:10>> Yeah, sometimes swing through trees.
7:11It's kind of fun. It's sort of um
7:13reminiscent of the past. Um for for old
7:15time's sake, swing through the trees
7:17once in a while. Probably, you know,
7:18there should be more swinging through
7:20trees. I bet it's way more fun than
7:21people think.
7:22>> I'm with you on that.
7:22>> [laughter]
7:22>> I'm definitely with you on swinging
7:24through trees. I love swinging through
7:25trees. But But But I'm really struck
7:27listening to you say this now, cuz I've
7:29been listening to a bunch of things that
7:30you've said over the years. And And 10
7:32years ago, you were on a podcast, I
7:33think it was with Neil deGrasse Tyson,
7:35and you said that the thing that
7:36terrified you most was
7:39rapid recursive of
7:40in AIs.
7:41>> Yes. that you said And it really stuck
7:43with me. You said that we will just be
7:44the pet Labradors at the best.
7:47>> Well,
7:47>> Now you see
7:48>> Labradors are pretty happy creatures.
7:50That's my experience.
7:50>> in 2023 you you called you asked for a
7:53slow down in AI cuz you were worried
7:55about it.
7:55>> Well, I signed on to, you know, on as
7:57one of many like 500 people. I I I was
8:00just,
8:01you know, one of many signa- signatories
8:03on that thing.
8:04>> But but I think even last year you said,
8:06I don't know where was it, Ted Cruz's
8:07podcast, you said there was a 10 to 20%
8:09chance of killer robots wiping out
8:11humanity.
8:12>> Yes.
8:12>> So you sounded worried then. Now you
8:15seem very relaxed about it. Have you
8:17changed your view?
8:19>> I still think there's
8:21I still think there's a risk
8:23associated with AI and robots. It's not
8:24zero.
8:26Um I I guess I've come to
8:30my my I sort of philosophical conclusion
8:33is to look on the bright side.
8:35Um
8:37I like I I can't see any way to really
8:39stop this
8:40incredible momentum of AI and robots.
8:44Um and
8:45and at times I sort of think, well,
8:47perhaps, you know, we're even if there
8:49was a stop button, we probably shouldn't
8:51press it
8:52uh because
8:55I cuz the most likely outcome
8:57is
8:59incredible
9:00abundance for
9:02for all.
9:03>> That's what I thought actually. It
9:04struck me that now you seem to have
9:06decided it's inevitable.
9:08Let's hope for the best and go for the
9:11ride.
9:12>> Yeah. I mean,
9:14yes, pretty much.
9:16Let's uh
9:17let's enjoy the ride as as
9:19I think my philosophy at this point cuz
9:21I mean, honestly, this this
9:22it's it's there seems to be just
9:24inexorable
9:26uh
9:27progress here in in AI and and in robots
9:31that um
9:33>> But you
9:33>> You know, even if I wanted to stop it
9:36and I I couldn't. Um
9:37>> Do you think there's still a 10 to 20%
9:39chance that killer robots mean the end
9:42of humanity?
9:44That's a high P doom, as they say.
9:47>> Well,
9:49in long run we're all dead, of course.
9:51Uh you know, um
9:53So I mean I I so the it
9:55let let's
9:56according to the standard model of
9:58physics, the end of the universe is
10:01um
10:02a long, boring
10:04sort of thin, gray soup of
10:08uh
10:10gradual cooling. Um I mean it's sort of
10:13the heat death of the universe it's
10:14called. So now if if the heat death of
10:17the universe is in fact the outcome for
10:19our reality, then it really is all about
10:21the journey.
10:23Because the destination is terrible.
10:24>> 10 years is not very [laughter]
10:26Yeah, I get that, but that could be a
10:27long way ahead. And and no basis very
10:29very long way. If it's 10 to 20% in 10
10:32years, you know, would you go into one
10:33of your rockets if you thought there was
10:34a 10 to 20% chance of it blowing up and
10:36killing you?
10:38>> Yes, but
10:41but let's say there's you can't do
10:43anything about it.
10:44>> Okay.
10:45>> The I guess the only thing we can try to
10:47do is minimize the probability of the
10:49bad outcome.
10:51Um
10:52but trying to stop the intelligence in
10:54robots
10:56um
10:58I mean for the longest time I
11:02declined to participate in AI or was you
11:05know
11:06you know, created OpenAI as a
11:08essentially counterweight to to Google
11:10cuz at the time they were um had more or
11:13less a monopoly on AI.
11:15Um
11:16and then Anthropic spun out of uh
11:18OpenAI.
11:20And and if anything, it seems like what
11:22my actions have really
11:24accelerated AI. You know, I wasn't
11:26really aiming to accelerate AI, but
11:29in creating OpenAI and then having
11:31Anthropic spun out of that and now
11:33currently Anthropic's leader in AI.
11:35Um
11:37I mean these
11:38these actions have actually resulted in
11:42knock-on effects that accelerated AI
11:45which wasn't really my intention.
11:47So it just seems like
11:51all roads lead to acceleration of AI.
11:55So then I'm like, "Okay. Well,
11:58you can just sort of be sad about it or
12:01join the club, I suppose."
12:02>> Well, you've certainly joined the club.
12:03>> Yeah.
12:04>> I mean you've you've definitely joined
12:05the club, but
12:06>> You can't beat them, join them, you
12:07know?
12:07>> Well, you've you've you've clearly done
12:09that and very successfully, but what
12:10about trying to minimize the risks? And
12:14you know, a number of the other leaders
12:17of of model makers have been pushing for
12:20different ways to try and minimize the
12:22risks. Um you know, just last week Demis
12:24Hassabis came out with a proposal for a
12:27private public regulator.
12:29Um
12:30>> Yeah.
12:30>> you you said it was a good starting
12:31point for discussions, I think. Do you
12:33think you guys should be working more
12:35actively
12:37to get something in place to control the
12:39risks or do you think that's impossible,
12:41too?
12:41>> My recommendation to Demis, cuz we I
12:43talked to him for
12:44a few hours before he published his his
12:46piece, was that um
12:49the most immediate thing that we could
12:50do is to have the leading AI companies
12:53um
12:54at least just meet uh or have a some
12:56sort of call
12:58once every few weeks
12:59um
13:00and just
13:02uh discuss
13:04se- any safety and security issues
13:07that and and and that before
13:09a breakthrough uh sort of a a new
13:11frontier model is released, something
13:13that sort of
13:14is is far more intelligent than anything
13:16that already exists, that there's an
13:18opportunity for
13:20the
13:21various competing uh AI companies to
13:25uh test test that model for
13:28any harmful effects.
13:30And to be able to recommend pausing to
13:33address some of these security issues.
13:36I think I think that's that's the that's
13:38sort of the the easy quick thing that we
13:39can do. And it can it can evolve to more
13:41than that over time. Um but that's um
13:45that I think would be a smart move.
13:46>> But why why haven't you done that yet? I
13:48mean there's like five of you, right? I
13:49mean everyone knows the first name.
13:51Dario, Demis, Sam. I mean you don't all
13:53like each other very much. Yeah, but you
13:54know you're not all I mean you're also
13:57all competing, right? You all want to be
13:58first.
13:59>> but that's that's where I think um the
14:02the competitors can keep
14:04keep each other honest. So I mean
14:06meaning like if um like I think it's
14:09quite difficult for someone in the
14:10government who doesn't have a deep
14:12technical understanding and isn't
14:13driving the frontier of of AI to know
14:17whether something should be released or
14:18not.
14:19Um however, the competitors I think what
14:23can you know if given sort of a week or
14:26two to review a new model um can
14:28highlight issues and uh and have an
14:31incentive to keep
14:33all all the competitors have an
14:34incentive to keep the others honest.
14:35>> Do you have enough trust between you to
14:37do that? I mean you don't much like each
14:38other. Wouldn't wouldn't Sam Altman just
14:40think you're going to nick all his ideas
14:41if you did that?
14:43>> Well, we're just talking about a
14:45Honestly, I I
14:46I think as little as a week is all that
14:48would be needed uh
14:50for private testing. It's it's not to
14:52it's not to hand over the AI. It's just
14:54to test it.
14:55>> Have you proposed this?
14:56>> Yeah, just to test it via an API or
14:58something.
14:59Um I think that would probably be a a
15:01good thing to do. Um
15:03>> But have you have you proposed it? I
15:04mean you could presumably organize that.
15:06>> to Demis.
15:08And I guess uh
15:09I'll I'll talk to Dario about it, too.
15:12Um
15:14There's also, of course, um some very
15:18competent uh Chinese AI companies um
15:22that uh there's several of them several
15:24of that are that are very good.
15:26Um
15:27the new Kimmy model
15:28>> Kimmy K3, yeah, the one that came out
15:29last week is I mean it's almost as good
15:31as Fable, right? So, it's
15:32>> Well,
15:34um
15:35I I think realistically Fable is is
15:37still
15:38uh clearly the smartest model. Um
15:41I mean anyone realistically would say
15:43that that's still the case. But,
15:45the Kimmy model is
15:47getting quite close to Fable.
15:49Um
15:50Now, Anthropic
15:52had uh Mythos from which Fable is
15:55derived.
15:56I think they had that
15:58ready in February.
16:00So,
16:01they've got they've got for it what they
16:03call I don't know what they're called,
16:04but
16:05Mythos 2 or or Fable 6 or something
16:08something much better than what they had
16:09in February. They are almost certainly
16:11have and we're not almost certainly,
16:12they certainly have right now. So,
16:15I and I think they could they they could
16:17release it at any time.
16:20>> Just before we get on to to releasing,
16:21how do you think about the Chinese
16:24models and the geopolitics of it? Are
16:26you worried about the Chinese catching
16:28up and getting ahead?
16:29>> Given that the Chinese
16:31AI companies are um
16:34are doing as well as they are with
16:36a relatively small amount of compute,
16:39uh it seems though as that if they had a
16:42lot of compute,
16:43um
16:44there's a good chance that they would be
16:46the leaders.
16:48And at some point,
16:50they probably will have a lot of
16:51compute.
16:53>> So, they will ergo they will be the
16:55leaders.
16:59>> There's a good chance that they are the
17:00leaders at some point. Um
17:03You can think of
17:05like the the constraints on AI are
17:07essentially
17:08electricity and
17:10AI chips.
17:12Um and then for physical AI, the robots.
17:15Uh China's also got some very
17:18good robot companies. In fact, they have
17:19these like robot sporting events. I
17:21don't know if you've seen some of them.
17:22>> Yes, I have. I saw them the last time I
17:23was in Beijing. I saw the the robots.
17:26>> Well, and then they have this sort of
17:27like a like a boxing match or a fighting
17:29match with um
17:31the robots, which is quite entertaining.
17:32And I saw I saw some video of robot that
17:34got its head knocked off, kept fighting
17:36even with its head knocked off.
17:38Uh, it looked pretty funny, but um I
17:39mean
17:40in fact, I think the the robot battles
17:42are going to be quite entertaining to
17:43watch.
17:44Um
17:45>> But but just to be
17:46>> so China's China's very strong on
17:48robots, very strong on digital AI, and
17:53and if you look at electricity
17:54production, you could say like AI is a
17:57function of whatever what what whatever
17:59the limiting factor is. If it's chips or
18:00electricity, China has far more
18:02electricity than the United States. In
18:04fact, China has more electricity than
18:06the United States,
18:08Europe, and India combined already.
18:10Um and is heading to
18:13And my guess is China gets to four times
18:16the electricity production of the US,
18:18which is roughly proportionate to the
18:20population.
18:21>> What should the US government do about
18:23this? I mean, if you you presumably it
18:25is a little alarming if you have an
18:27authoritarian regime far ahead in the
18:29most powerful technology. And clearly
18:31what what the US government's been
18:33trying to do is with the export controls
18:35and so forth, keep China back. Do you
18:37think they should ban the use of K3
18:40Kimmy K3, for example?
18:42>> Well, the US government can't they they
18:44can
18:45they can pass some law that prevents US
18:48companies from using
18:50um
18:50Chinese models, but they can't stop the
18:52rest of the world from from using them.
18:54Um
18:55So, it's it's not like
18:57the the US government has authority over
18:58China or the rest of the world. Um
19:01>> Do you think they should stop US
19:02companies from using them? There's talk
19:03of that right now, right?
19:06>> I don't think that that helps.
19:09Um it that won't stop
19:11China from being the leader in AI. The
19:13the
19:14really it's for for digital intelligence
19:16it comes down to
19:18uh how much AI compute do you have? It
19:21Well, how many chips
19:23chips do you have and how much power do
19:25you have? How much electricity do you
19:27have?
19:28Um
19:29so
19:31the constraint right now I think is
19:33actually slightly more on
19:36power and cooling than it is on AI chips
19:38because um
19:40the the power demands of the AI chips
19:42are very very high. Um we'll talk about
19:44water demands but the really the water
19:46usage of of AI is negligible or almost
19:49nothing.
19:50Um
19:51but the electric the electrical demand
19:53is very high.
19:53>> That's why you're thinking of orbital
19:55data centers presumably. That's
19:56>> Yes, the constraint for any AI chips
20:00not being turned on in China is
20:02electricity and like power and cooling
20:05and the electrical equipment and
20:06everything.
20:07Um
20:08the rate at which AI chips are being
20:11made exceeds the rate at which new
20:13electricity is coming online.
20:14>> In China. Okay.
20:15>> Um out outside of China.
20:17>> Outside China, I see. Yeah.
20:18>> Um
20:19and since China
20:20you know the the US has banned the
20:22export of the latest AI chips to China
20:25um
20:27China is is somewhat chip starved. So so
20:29>> are becoming much more efficient at
20:30using the chips that they have and that
20:33that one of the striking things of Kimik
20:343, right, is how efficiently they
20:37>> And and and China is also
20:38um
20:40I I think
20:41closer than most people realize to
20:44solving uh
20:46the lithography problem
20:48which would enable them to make uh AI
20:50chips at at very large volumes.
20:54So
20:55so I think this
20:57you know, this isn't evolving into just
20:59a China conversation but um
21:02but but the so the current current
21:04constraint is is electricity outside of
21:05China. In China, the constraint is
21:07chips.
21:08Uh
21:09once the
21:11once we address the
21:12the power constraint with um AI data
21:15centers in space,
21:17uh then the constraint will once again
21:19be chips outside of China.
21:21>> That suggests to me that you need China
21:24and the US if you're going to have some
21:26overall safety constraints that they
21:27will need to work together. If you are
21:29going to try and I mean you suggested
21:32you know, the five
21:34>> Well, I think it should include Uh
21:35probably it should include um
21:38the Chinese companies that are
21:40doing frontier uh AI models, too.
21:43>> And do you think the governments need to
21:44be involved?
21:46>> My recommendation would be that if
21:50if some of the leading companies in AI
21:52in AI say that
21:54this a new model is
21:56very dangerous,
21:58then they should inform the government
22:00and and and and well if a new model is
22:02very dangerous and that the company
22:05producing that model is not taking steps
22:07to address the danger,
22:09then then they should alert the
22:10government to take action um
22:14to limit the
22:16uh
22:18release of that model.
22:20Uh and that could be action by the
22:21Chinese government or action by the US
22:22government. Um it's it's really it's
22:25really just the US government and the
22:27Chinese government that that have the
22:28power to take action here.
22:30>> But the I guess people would be worried
22:32about relying on a group of model
22:36builders to decide whether to do this. I
22:38mean if you look at what the US
22:39government has done with with Mythos,
22:41they stepped in because they were
22:43worried about the cybersecurity
22:45risks and they stepped in using you
22:47know, threat of export controls to you
22:49know,
22:50prevent the widespread release of this
22:52model. I find it hard to see how
22:53governments will not want to keep that
22:56power that they ultimately decide
22:59whether or not it gets released.
23:00>> I think they should keep they should
23:01have that power, but it it wasn't as
23:03though someone in the government figured
23:05out that Methos uh
23:08was had had some scary
23:11cybersecurity
23:13uh
23:15risks. It it was Amazon.
23:17Um Amazon highlighted this and Amazon
23:20called the White House.
23:22>> So, you'd have a system where the model
23:24makers would check each other's work. If
23:26there was something that worried them,
23:27you'd tell the government. The
23:28government would then think, "Okay."
23:31>> and that company was not doing anything
23:32to address that risk, then that would be
23:35the
23:36the moment for government to step in
23:38and take action, which is literally what
23:40just what occurred with Methos.
23:41>> have to happen?
23:44>> I think it'd be good to do that.
23:46I think
23:48immediately, really. Yeah.
23:50>> Yeah, that's what people keep telling
23:51me. We we have to get this some kind of
23:53system in the next 6 months because of
23:55the pace at which the models are
23:56improving.
23:58>> Yeah, 6 months is a long time.
24:01Um
24:02>> So, you think shorter than that?
24:05>> Well, I
24:06I mean, there's there's so many AI
24:08breakthrough announcements,
24:10sometimes multiple per day.
24:12I mean, how many were there last week?
24:14>> A lot.
24:15>> I lost track, you know.
24:15>> Yeah, a lot.
24:17>> Um
24:20>> So, so you you basically, you know,
24:22whether it's Demis' proposal or others,
24:23you need to get together and get this
24:25set up kind of now, it sounds like
24:26you're telling me.
24:27>> Yeah. I I I would recommend that we at
24:30least have some sort of informal um
24:33weekly or bi-weekly
24:35um
24:36call and that there's that that
24:40um there's maybe
24:41a week or 2 weeks of of early access by
24:45competitors. Um and this is why I think
24:47the incentives work is because if if,
24:49you know, competing companies I think
24:51are likely to
24:53understand if something is a security
24:54risk and they're they're not going to be
24:57shy about highlighting that that their
24:59their competitors' models should be
25:01delayed in release.
25:02>> Is that
25:02>> That that's the I think the structure
25:04does work quite well there. And And if
25:06the if And if
25:07this is sort of how it works with the
25:09Motion Picture Association, you know,
25:10the
25:11it's it's an industry group that uh
25:15decides how
25:16how movies should be rated. You know,
25:18whe- whether it's appropriate for all
25:19for young children or or not. Um
25:22and that's uh
25:24that seems to have worked quite well.
25:26So, um
25:28And And And And then you really just ask
25:30have ask the government to intervene if
25:32if some if a company's doing something
25:33very dangerous and refuses to take
25:36action to reduce the danger.
25:38>> Do you think this is a This is a tricky
25:39one, but
25:42you guys don't much like each other and
25:44you don't much trust each other. You're
25:45insulting each other on on social media
25:47constantly. So, do you Do you think you
25:49can do that with people that you dislike
25:51that that where there seems to be such
25:53kind of personal vitriol between some of
25:54these leaders?
25:57>> Um
25:58Yes, well, I'm not I'm not a fan of Sam
26:00Altman because um
26:02>> You're watching my interview with Elon
26:04Musk. If you want to get early access to
26:07other interviews, subscribe to The
26:09Economist by clicking the link above.
26:11Now, back to the interview.
26:13>> If you started a nonprofit that was
26:15meant to be an open-source
26:17AI company
26:19and um
26:21you know,
26:22owned by the world uh and it somehow got
26:24turned into
26:25an $800 billion for-profit company
26:28with closed source, I think you'd be
26:29like, "Well, wait a second. That's uh
26:31the exact opposite of what I donated the
26:33money for." That That's my issue. I
26:36think it's a legitimate one.
26:38Um
26:39And then Dario, I think, also is not a
26:41fan of Sam Altman because he felt Uh in
26:43fact, the reason the Anthropic team left
26:45OpenAI is because they they didn't trust
26:47Sam Altman.
26:48Otherwise, Anthropic
26:50wouldn't exist. They would still be at
26:51Open AI.
26:53Um
26:54I I think Dario is very principled
26:57person. He cares about things a lot.
26:59He cares about the future of of the
27:01world and I I think everyone I've met at
27:03Anthropic so far has been
27:06I mean like no one set off my evil
27:07detector. You know, they always seem
27:09seem like they're well-intentioned. Um
27:12and
27:14the road to hell is I think mostly paved
27:16with bad intentions. There are a few
27:18well-intentioned paving stones in there.
27:20So we we don't want to be complacent. Um
27:23but
27:24at the end of the day if we have to
27:25talk, we'll talk. I mean
27:27set aside our personal differences for
27:29the good of the world at the end of the
27:30day.
27:30>> Well, that's that's a very good thing
27:32for the rest of us to hear.
27:33>> Yeah.
27:34Um
27:35>> Can I Can we turn to one other risk that
27:37people worry about? Particularly I think
27:40ordinary Americans where you know, AI
27:41has become incredibly unpopular. 75% of
27:43people are worried about it. And I think
27:45they worry about their jobs.
27:47And if you look at Dario has said
27:50famously what? 50% of entry-level jobs
27:53entry-level white-collar jobs will be
27:55gone within a few years. You're building
27:57humanoid robots.
27:58>> Yes, he he also said like I mean Dario
28:01did dig his own grave here regarding
28:03Methuselahs because he said,
28:05you know, Methuselahs is like super
28:06scary, terrifying and also by the way,
28:09we're going to release it. And then he's
28:10like, what what do you mean?
28:12>> [laughter]
28:13>> You know, so I think he
28:15Um I think probably in the future will
28:16choose his words uh differently. Um
28:20>> But what's your sense
28:21>> if you if you make if you terrify
28:22everyone and then say, "Oh, we're
28:23releasing this terrifying thing."
28:25People will obviously be alarmed about
28:26that. You know, you've literally told
28:28them to be scared and then you release
28:30the scary thing and so they will be
28:31scared. That is natural.
28:34>> So I I certainly don't want you to alarm
28:36people, but I do think there is a really
28:38important debate about how quickly and
28:41to what degree AI is displace people
28:44from jobs. Because it is as you say, if
28:46within 10 years, it's more it's there's
28:48more intelligent artificial intelligence
28:49than any human intelligence.
28:51>> Yes.
28:51>> And if you are, and I think you're ahead
28:53of everyone this in this country on
28:56powering humanoid robots, that's that's
28:58also going to be
28:59>> Yeah.
28:59>> kind of
29:00factory work. So, do you Are you part Do
29:03you Are you closer to Dario, let's say,
29:05in your sense of the pace at which jobs
29:07are going to be displaced?
29:11>> I I do think it's going to be
29:13a bumpy road. Um
29:16because
29:18AI will be able to do any job
29:20better than any person
29:22can do that job.
29:24Um and that will be true
29:26very quickly of
29:29jobs that
29:30um are digital or really anything that
29:32involves a person at a computer or on a
29:35phone. AI could do all of that um will
29:38be will be able to do
29:39all of that very soon.
29:42I mean, for
29:43software engineering, we already have
29:46a situation where AI is better than
29:50at least 90% of humans
29:52um at writing software.
29:54Or 90% of professional software
29:57engineers at writing software.
29:59And I mean, it really is getting to the
30:00point where it'll be better than 99%
30:04and then it'll get to the point where
30:06there's just no way to compete. It'll
30:07It'll get to what I call Stockfish
30:09level.
30:10So, Stockfish. So, Stockfish is the
30:13chess program
30:14that um
30:16Stockfish is so good at chess that you
30:20know,
30:20it will
30:22easily beat Magnus Carlsen or anyone
30:25uh at chess
30:27um on a
30:28even running on a small computer. I
30:30suspect that
30:31you could probably run Stockfish on your
30:34phone
30:35and beat Magnus Carlsen. That's how good
30:37it is at chess.
30:38And that's how good AI will be at
30:40writing software.
30:42>> And beyond software?
30:44Beyond
30:44>> And that applies to everything.
30:46>> Everything
30:47>> Everything, everything.
30:48>> Everything, but what about you for for
30:51physical jobs, for assembly jobs? You
30:54will also need the capability in
30:55humanoid robots, which so far isn't
30:58there yet, is it?
31:00>> Right, so
31:02that's why I said digital AI and then
31:04physically manifested AI in the form of
31:05robots, where the robot is is
31:08more or less an end effector
31:09would have some amount of local
31:10intelligence, but be [clears throat]
31:12managed by a large AI model.
31:15Um
31:17and uh
31:20I
31:20And I've said many times I think work is
31:22going to be
31:23optional.
31:25So
31:26I didn't mean Let me So so I think maybe
31:29maybe a good a good uh
31:32comparison would be um gardening.
31:36Like you don't have to garden. You know,
31:38you don't like
31:39you don't have to grow vegetables for in
31:41your in your garden. You can go to the
31:43store and there are going to be pristine
31:45vegetables, or you can grow vegetables
31:47in your garden and they will actually be
31:50uh
31:51less perfect. Your
31:53tomato is not going to be as plump and
31:54juicy as the ones at the store. They
31:57they have They'll you know, look a
31:58little
31:59artisanal. Um
32:00But you know, if you if you go to a
32:01friend's house and they they make dinner
32:04at and it's it's with vegetables from
32:06their garden, it's it's a nice touch.
32:10So that's what So that's what work is
32:11going to be like.
32:12>> AI. I get that. I mean, in that world I
32:14would be hopeless cuz I can't garden to
32:15save my life, but I get the idea. People
32:17still like playing chess with each other
32:18even though every computer is better.
32:20But let's just let's just think about
32:21the politics of this.
32:23>> Yeah.
32:23>> Because it sounds to you you're
32:24describing a world where within 10 years
32:26pretty much every job can be done better
32:29by an intelligence.
32:30And
32:31>> Yes.
32:32>> you're seeing huge returns to this
32:33intelligence to people like you. You're
32:35the wealthiest man in the world.
32:37What people who lose their jobs, who are
32:39displaced, who may go off and garden,
32:41but how are they going to live? And what
32:43kind of I mean, it sounds to me like
32:44>> to be universal high income.
32:47>> But how are you going to get there?
32:48Let's talk about the politics of this
32:50cuz right now
32:51we if we look at the political pressures
32:54in most countries, people are very, very
32:55worried about this, very against it.
32:58I mean, it seems to me that there's a
32:59risk that we are heading more for
33:00revolution than for an easy route to
33:03this nirvana you're playing out.
33:05>> I mean, it will be a bumpy road. I'm not
33:07suggesting it will be
33:09a sort of
33:11that everything will be smooth sailing
33:12here.
33:13Um
33:15so
33:17I mean, there are many jobs that used to
33:19exist
33:20that don't exist because of computers.
33:23I mean, the the word computer used to
33:24refer to a person doing computations.
33:28Like that used to be a job description
33:29of a person.
33:31And you can see pictures online of
33:33um
33:34of buildings that have entire
33:35skyscrapers of just filled with people
33:37doing calculations to to do things like
33:40calculate the interest on your bank
33:42balance.
33:43Um
33:45this is how things were done
33:47for a long time
33:49until computers came around. And even in
33:51the beginning, computers were very
33:52expensive and hard to use.
33:55Uh so so the the thing that's different
33:57here is that the the pace of change
34:00is
34:01radically accelerated.
34:03So
34:04but still people you know, some people
34:05were upset that they
34:07their job of calculating bank interest
34:10[clears throat]
34:10it would would no longer be available.
34:13Um
34:14but now I think there's it's you'd be
34:16hard-pressed to find people who wanted
34:18to do that job.
34:20Um so I think I I have a suggestion for
34:23say what say science fiction
34:27books people might want to read to get a
34:30sense of what the future will be like.
34:34And the the best envisioning of an AI
34:36future that I've read are the books by
34:38Ian Banks, the Culture books.
34:40>> reading Excession.
34:41So I've I've thanks to you I've started
34:43reading these.
34:45But I actually don't find that future a
34:48terribly appealing one because I don't
34:49think humans have agency in that future.
34:52>> They have agency
34:53>> Minimal compared to the minds.
34:55>> way.
34:56>> But yeah, I really I mean Ian Banks as
34:58you know was a socialist. Um but Ian
35:00Banks had a very different political
35:01philosophy.
35:02>> I'm not sure that's I'm not sure I
35:04wouldn't totally agree with that.
35:06>> Let's agree that that could be where we
35:07end up. I'm I'm concerned about the road
35:10and we live
35:11you know, we live in democracies and
35:13people are very worried about this. So I
35:16guess two questions. Firstly, do you
35:18have to have massive redistribution from
35:20people like you
35:22to the people who are losing their jobs?
35:24Do you need to have
35:25Do you need to pay more tax? Do you have
35:27much higher taxes on capital so that you
35:30fund some kind of universal income?
35:32Otherwise, what do people live off?
35:35>> I I think that the Treasury should just
35:37simply issue people checks.
35:39Oh, you send
35:40>> the revenue coming from? I mean I mean
35:42I'm an economist. If you just issue
35:43checks, you're going to have inflation.
35:44>> It it you know, this is
35:47like a lot of what we're trying to think
35:48about is
35:49you these things were relevant in
35:52the past, they will not be relevant in
35:54the future. So
35:55like inflation is simply the ratio of
35:58money to the to to goods and services.
36:01So if the goods and services output
36:03increases dramatically, if it increases
36:06you know, 1,000% you can increase the
36:09you can literally
36:11print all these case change the
36:13database. It's not not really print
36:14money.
36:15You create money in the in the database.
36:17Um provided the creation of that money
36:21uh
36:22is less than the rate at which goods and
36:24services increase
36:26um
36:27you you actually have deflation. So,
36:29I'll make a prediction, which is that
36:31deflation will be the issue, not
36:32inflation.
36:34The because because as the output of
36:36goods and services increases, um if if
36:39the output of goods and services
36:40increases faster than money supply, you
36:42will have deflation.
36:43>> I'm actually I'm perfectly willing to
36:44believe that. You may well be right.
36:46Yeah, yeah, absolutely. You may well be
36:47right. But I'm I'm really
36:50hung up on how we get from the current
36:54polarized, angry,
36:56fearful
36:58policy we have now to this nirvana. And
37:01and I think you could you can paint a
37:02picture where people are so scared by
37:04this,
37:05you know, they essentially try to stop
37:06it. Maybe they can't, but you get
37:08nationalized, there's a kind of, you
37:10know, far left government, uh there's
37:13exorbitant tax increases, the kind of
37:15economy crumbles because people are so
37:17worried about a future which does sound
37:19quite scary as you describe it. So, how
37:21do you How do you handle the politics
37:23now?
37:24>> and terrifying.
37:26>> But if if you were in the Yeah, exactly.
37:27Exactly.
37:28>> Honestly, and if you ask me on any given
37:29day, I I I
37:31In fact, even intraday, I've gone from
37:35exhilaration to terror regarding AI. So,
37:37I'm I'm going to be clear. I'm not like
37:39I'm not sort of some, you know, I'm
37:41going to try to be sort of candid here
37:43and and just be some, oh, everything's
37:45wonderful, some Panglossian
37:47view of the world where everything's,
37:49you know, going to be great, no no no
37:51risk. I'm I'm saying there is some risk.
37:53Um
37:54>> I think we agree on that. I guess I'm
37:56trying to be more sort of,
37:58you know, small bore and practical and
38:00think about what can be done now to
38:03limit those risks. And you gave a very
38:04strong argument for what you and and
38:06your fellow model makers could do. What
38:08should the government do?
38:08>> would be good to for us to
38:11coordinate and and just highlight issues
38:13that we see in each others' models
38:15um to mitigate
38:17downside risk.
38:18>> Well, what should the Should the
38:18government Should you be paying more tax
38:20to fund more transfer programs?
38:23>> Well, first of all, I do I do pay a lot
38:25of tax. Um
38:27so, um
38:29I in fact I um
38:32I set a record for the most amount of
38:33taxes ever paid by a
38:35by a human.
38:36>> That's also cuz you're the world's
38:37richest man.
38:39>> Well, even before that.
38:40>> [laughter]
38:42>> So, my guess is that I will pay
38:46many trillions in tax.
38:48And I'm fine with that.
38:50Um
38:51so
38:52yeah, um
38:53that's just the way it's going to be.
38:55But I don't think
38:57in the future when money's relevant, I
38:58think taxation also becomes somewhat
39:00irrelevant.
39:01>> about giving people a sense that they
39:03have a share in the upside?
39:04>> Sure.
39:05>> Giving people shares in SpaceX and
39:07Tesla, do you think that's the And
39:09there's a lot of talk about this right
39:10now.
39:11>> Um well, one of the reasons I
39:13took SpaceX public is so that
39:15the public could participate in
39:17they could own a piece of SpaceX. Um
39:20whereas as a private company, we're very
39:22limited in the number of shareholders
39:24we're allowed to have before going
39:25public. So, as a public company,
39:27um we can have millions of shareholders.
39:29As a private company, we're we're
39:31limited to just a few thousand
39:32shareholders.
39:33Um
39:35so
39:36>> Do you think there should be
39:37distribution of shares like, you know,
39:38the Alaska wealth fund is there for
39:41which
39:41could you imagine a world and some
39:43people talk about the Trump accounts
39:44being a kind of vehicle for this that
39:46you a share of your
39:48equity goes to ordinary Americans?
39:51>> Right. Well, in in the taxes that like
39:53that I that I pay, I mean I'll I'll
39:56you know, so
39:57for my stock options, I pay 40%
40:01uh
40:02income tax on a national basis and then
40:05because I spend I don't know, about 30%
40:07of my time in California,
40:09thereabouts, I pay an another
40:12sort of a roughly a third of the
40:13California state taxes, which is
40:15I know I know around 15%. So, so I I pay
40:18about 45% in taxes just so people know
40:21know this, you know, I don't know if
40:22it's quite so roughly half.
40:25>> Um then when I die, there'll be another
40:28sort of
40:29>> 45% roughly half that that will be
40:32taxed.
40:33Um
40:34so at at the end of the day I probably
40:36I'll have a quarter of what I what I
40:38whatever I have. But
40:40the
40:42um
40:44I I think the only thing it gives me is
40:45that for some period of time
40:48I would have control of the direction of
40:50the companies.
40:52So
40:53it's not um
40:55that that's pretty much all it it gets
40:57me and and until I guess the AI is so
40:59smart that
41:00it's it's it's in charge. And at that
41:03point
41:04controlling companies won't really
41:05matter.
41:06>> Well, let's talk about that because I
41:07think one of the other things that
41:09worries people about the direction we're
41:11heading in and I'm going to caricature
41:13it but people think that the direction
41:15of the world is being shaped by a very
41:18small number of incredibly powerful
41:20people and you are right at the top of
41:21that list.
41:22>> But what what else is is this different
41:24from the from the past?
41:25>> I agree with you. I think I think
41:26[laughter] it was like that in the
41:27>> When when when wasn't that the case?
41:29>> ever thus.
41:30>> It was ever thus, exactly.
41:31>> It is a as you've described very
41:33vividly, it's an incredibly rapid
41:34change. And so let's start with control
41:36of your company which you definitely
41:38have now. Um after the IPO you basically
41:40you have 80% odd of voting shares and as
41:43I understand it
41:45you can only be removed by a vote of
41:47shares which you yourself control. So so
41:49tell me if I'm wrong but I think you can
41:51go crazy.
41:52>> in that bucket by the way. The The AI
41:53companies are like Google's in that in
41:56that bucket. Alphabet is controlled by
41:58Larry and Sergey.
42:00Um
42:00>> But I think yours is more extreme. The
42:01inability to
42:03>> level of they have
42:05voting control of of that company.
42:07Mark Zuckerberg has control of a matter.
42:10And and you know, Mark is trying very
42:12hard on the AI front and I think
42:14probably will will also have a leading
42:17AI he's made I think he released one
42:19last week. Um
42:21so I think he's he's he'll be one of the
42:25you know
42:25Meta will be one of the AI companies.
42:28>> But is it sensible for one person to
42:29have so much control over a company?
42:32>> Um well, it I really just need to make
42:35sure that I can focus on
42:38long-term
42:40By long-term I just mean in the my 5 to
42:4210 years. Um
42:44so
42:45one of the the challenges with being a
42:47public company is that
42:49it is other sort of the pressure to to
42:52have uh great results every single
42:54quarter.
42:55But and and and to not really invest in
42:58things that
42:59may only pay off in 5 to 10 years. And
43:03um
43:04in the case of SpaceX, I need I I want
43:07to extend consciousness beyond Earth.
43:09And and have a
43:12growing civilization on the moon, Mars,
43:15and elsewhere in the solar system.
43:17The return I I think ultimately this
43:19would have a very high return on
43:20investment, but in the short term we'll
43:22be spending all this money on a moon
43:23base
43:24or in a Mars base and then people are
43:26like I you know, I'm going to I'm going
43:28to
43:29get all this pressure for like, "Well,
43:30you missed your earnings this quarter
43:31cuz you spent too much on Mars." And I'm
43:33like, "Yes." By the way, that was in the
43:35in the S1 prospectus and it's it's it's
43:38literally listed as a thing we will do.
43:41Um so we do so.
43:43But but but they still get grumpy about
43:44these things, you know? Cuz they're
43:45like, "Well, you had whatever, you know,
43:48you said your gross margin would be this
43:49and it's actually slightly worse and
43:51then now now we're going to punish you
43:53and and the short sellers all descend
43:55upon you and you get a lot of pressure
43:57to public
43:57>> get a lot of that.
43:58>> Yeah, so I just need some way to sort of
44:00you know, say like, "Listen, guys, we're
44:02we're going to focus on 5 to 10 year or
44:04longer time horizon investments. This
44:07will depress our short-term earnings,
44:09but the long I mean, if you take a
44:11long-term view and there are investors
44:13we have many investors that do take a
44:14long-term view. In fact,
44:16I'm a big fan of the the retail
44:17investors. In fact, I find our retail
44:19investors
44:20um on balance have the have the
44:23the they're very insightful and and have
44:26very long-term views. Um
44:29But but it part of this comes to you
44:30say, "What's the incentive structure?"
44:31Is it the for portfolio managers, it's
44:35it's sort of understandable what why
44:36they put so much pressure on on a on a
44:38quarterly earnings because
44:40um their their compensation and their um
44:44and whether they get promoted or not is
44:46dependent on how their portfolio does.
44:48And they they have they only have a few
44:50years
44:51to to make these decisions. Um and then
44:55they're evaluated based on those
44:56decisions over the course of sometimes
44:59only
45:00a year or less.
45:01And uh and so since since they're under
45:03pressure
45:05to have immediate returns, they then put
45:07companies under pressure to have
45:08immediate returns. So once you
45:11understand the incentive structure, the
45:12behavior of naturally follows.
45:15>> What about though key man risk? I mean,
45:18what happens you know, I heaven forbid,
45:20but what happens if you get run over by
45:21the proverbial bus tomorrow? You know,
45:24it is you
45:26you have total control over these
45:27companies. Do you have a plan for how
45:29they would progress without you?
45:31>> I I think they would actually
45:33do very well for
45:36for for several years.
45:38Um
45:40And you know, there's a clear road map
45:43for or space map, I should say, for
45:45SpaceX.
45:46Um
45:48And there's a a road map
45:50actually for Tesla literally.
45:52Um
45:53So I think I think there's
45:56you know, if you look at Apple after
45:57Steve Jobs, you know, Steve Jobs had
46:00you know, he he he had a strategic
46:01vision and a bunch of products that um
46:05that that he had had ideas for and Apple
46:08has done very well.
46:09Um
46:10but but the but
46:12when you don't have a creative genius
46:14like Steve Jobs
46:16you don't you you you what what you miss
46:18what's what Apple's missing are the
46:20incredible breakthrough products.
46:22>> Yeah.
46:23>> So
46:24they make amazing phones, you know,
46:26great computers um but Apple hasn't come
46:29up with a sort of
46:30Steve Jobs Steve Jobs level breakthrough
46:32product.
46:33>> So by analogy, that's what you bring to
46:36all of your companies.
46:38You mentioned
46:40Mars, you know, most people think of you
46:43as the man who wants to, you know,
46:44create a colony on Mars so we have
46:47multi-planetary civilization.
46:48>> saying that for such a long time.
46:49>> You have but now you seem more focused
46:53on AI and what AI will do in the next 10
46:55years and you you sound much more
46:57excited about using the moon as a base
46:59from which to, you know, pop out orbital
47:03AI satellites.
47:05Have you shifted your attention away
47:06from Mars or are you as interested in
47:08colonizing Mars as you ever were?
47:11>> I I'm I'm interested in the set of
47:13actions that propagate consciousness
47:16into the future to the maximum degree
47:18possible.
47:19So that the future light cone of
47:21consciousness
47:23is as big as as big as we can, you know,
47:25like like
47:26you know, there's a there's an exciting
47:28future
47:29where there's a where there's a
47:30spacefaring civilization out there among
47:32the stars
47:33and
47:35and the
47:36the great things that are envisioned in
47:37the
47:40non-dystopian sci-fi
47:42books and movies
47:44come become real one day.
47:46I sort of want the Star Trek
47:49you know Star Wars future. Star Wars was
47:51the first movie I ever saw in the
47:52theater, by the way.
47:53>> Really?
47:53>> It was probably maybe had a profound
47:55effect on me, I suppose. Um
47:57so, I remember I was I I was
48:00it blew my mind, honestly. I was I think
48:02I was 6 years old and um I was like,
48:04"This is the greatest thing I've ever
48:05seen."
48:06>> Has your life been about making that
48:08happen?
48:09>> Yeah. I mean, it
48:11I didn't think it would be, but at the
48:13when I was young, but um I'm my life
48:16feels somewhat surreal. I I can't
48:17believe these things are actually
48:18happening, you know.
48:20Um
48:20>> I think the world feels somewhat
48:22surreal.
48:22>> in simulation theory.
48:25Where it's like, "Well, this
48:27Like the the things I'm doing are so
48:28preposterous that um
48:32it's hard to believe they're real.
48:34I mean, we've got Starship, which is
48:36the
48:37largest, most powerful
48:39flying object ever made.
48:41Um
48:42and we intend to launch that
48:45more than once per hour.
48:48>> I know. I read that. And we can, you
48:50know, people can quibble about how
48:51quickly it happens, but I think based on
48:52your track record, we should assume it
48:54will happen at some point.
48:55>> It will happen.
48:57>> I I'm just sort of struck that when I
48:59when I I am as as blown away by this
49:01world as you are and I'm I watch it from
49:03a from a much more naive level, but
49:06for me, the whole evolution of AI and
49:09the capabilities of these models is in
49:12and of itself so mind-blowing.
49:15>> It's pretty much happening as I
49:16as I thought thought it would.
49:18>> Is it?
49:18>> Yeah.
49:19>> Oh, that's interesting. [laughter]
49:21>> Um
49:23And not just me, but many people um
49:27predicted this. Like, Ray Kurzweil
49:29predict Ray Ray Kurzweil's predictions
49:30have
49:31been remarkably accurate.
49:33>> Yeah, the singularity.
49:34>> Yeah.
49:35>> Approaching. Let's go back and more
49:37immediately to the here and now. We've
49:38talked about concentration of control in
49:40your companies. You made a very good
49:41case for why you should have it. You
49:43also have, through Starlink, incredible
49:46geopolitical power. I mean, I'm I'm one
49:49of your customers.
49:50>> Thank you.
49:50>> Excellent product.
49:51>> I I hope you're right.
49:52>> But without them, the Ukrainians would
49:53have been in serious serious trouble.
49:55>> Um yes, the Ukrainian government has
49:57publicly thanked Starlink many times for
50:00being instrumental in
50:03uh defending Ukraine.
50:05>> And you recently decided to prevent the
50:07Russians in the occupied territories
50:09from having access to Starlink.
50:11>> Um well, no that we do
50:14we were we were never at any point
50:16selling Starlink to Russians.
50:18Um but they were grabbing it, right?
50:19They were using it and you now
50:20>> Yes.
50:21Well,
50:22what they they they essentially got
50:24Starlink units
50:26that they ordered through Ukraine and
50:28then and then smuggled them into
50:31the
50:32into eastern Ukraine where the Russians
50:33are.
50:34Um
50:35and were then using them
50:37in some cases for
50:40attacks.
50:41Um
50:42Now, the
50:44in order to address this,
50:46um
50:48what we worked with the Ukrainian
50:49government to create a white list of
50:51approved Starlink terminals.
50:53Now, this has some downsides because a
50:55whole bunch of people who were just
50:57innocent users of Starlink and just
50:59trying to access the internet for work
51:02or for education
51:04now don't have Starlink.
51:06>> These are geopolitical decisions of
51:07consequence. How do you feel about
51:10having that power? You could determine
51:11the outcome of wars.
51:13How does that feel?
51:15And is it right that you should have
51:16that power?
51:18>> Well, I I'm not sure we're
51:20we're determining the ultimate outcome
51:22of the
51:24you know, that the say the war in
51:25Ukraine. Um
51:29You know, I I
51:30I think I do hope
51:32that that that that there's some sort of
51:33peace agreement reached soon because
51:35um
51:37for
51:39like two or three years now
51:41the border has barely moved and um
51:44and every day
51:46there are lots of people dying at the
51:47front line and
51:50um and I think there's a lot of wishful
51:52thinking here of of people saying well
51:53Russia should completely withdraw etc.
51:56But this is not realistic. Um I really
51:58think there needs to be some
52:02um
52:04you know a
52:05peace with that that is
52:07that
52:08you know we have to be pragmatic about
52:10this. What we can't what I think would
52:12be
52:13terrible is if if there's if there's
52:15another three years of people dying
52:18senselessly at the front lines.
52:20Um
52:22with with the and you have to say like
52:23well
52:28you know how do you explain to
52:31the the the children of of the men that
52:33are dying at the front lines. Russia on
52:35the Russian side too by the way they're
52:36they're being conscripted and sent
52:37there. I'm white
52:39offended by sort of fancy diplomats who
52:42have
52:43you know seven course dinners in in
52:45you know in luxurious places while
52:48people are dying at the front lines and
52:50who who pontificate about how Russia
52:52should withdraw but they're not going to
52:54Russia's Russia's not going to withdraw.
52:56So
52:58there really needs to be an accepted
53:00peace long along those lines.
53:02Um
53:03>> And do you think it's your
53:04responsibility to play a role in tipping
53:07the scales towards what you see as the
53:09right way to peace?
53:11>> I
53:11I'd like I've been advocating peace for
53:13a long time. I you know I I posted
53:17a few years ago that
53:18that that
53:20there really needs to be some concession
53:22here to Russia.
53:23Um
53:24This is not me being pro-Russia. I'm
53:25just being pragmatic um or people will
53:28die for years
53:30uh
53:31with nothing achieved and that is
53:33exactly
53:34what happened.
53:36>> I don't know. I mean the Ukrainians
53:37>> Exactly what happened.
53:39>> The Ukrainians do are doing pretty well
53:41right now at
53:43you know, with that incredible drone
53:44capacity hitting inside Russia and the
53:47and the kind of general consensus is
53:49that, you know, the the the balance of
53:51the war is shifting. But, my point is
53:53not so much about what
53:54>> not going to retake those territories.
53:55It is not going to happen.
53:57>> My interest is really on whether you
53:59think given that you you have through
54:00Starlink, you have an incredible power,
54:03whether it's appropriate
54:05that you should wield it. And that's
54:07quite rare that an individual actor has
54:09such power by turning on and off a
54:11capability to shape conflict.
54:14>> Well, is there something you think I
54:15should do differently?
54:19>> I mean, I I think you were right to
54:21support Ukraine. I think that, you know,
54:22as you as it won't surprise you, I I
54:24think that the Russian aggression was
54:27uh I, you know, for many, many reasons
54:29an appalling aggression. And I I think
54:31that that was an important thing that
54:32you did.
54:34>> Yeah, I mean, I did a a very deep dive
54:36into the background of that conflict to
54:38understand exactly what was going on.
54:41Um
54:42and um
54:46I'm reminded of the old adage that there
54:48are no angels in war.
54:50>> It's a similar tone, I think, about
54:52domestic politics where you've
54:54you know, you've you've
54:56played a big role domestically
54:58politically here. You spend a lot of
54:59money on Donald Trump's re-election.
55:02After the election, you got very
55:03actively involved, you know, through
55:05Dodge, you tried to cut a lot of
55:07spending, reshape the government.
55:10How do you feel that it wasn't hugely
55:12successful in the sense that, you know,
55:14there wasn't nearly as much spending cut
55:16as you tried. How do you as you look
55:17back on that?
55:19Do you regret getting so involved in
55:21politics? Do you think it was a good
55:22thing to do?
55:23>> I think I I think I got a little too
55:25involved in politics, got carried away,
55:26frankly. Um
55:28so
55:29the um
55:32you know, the the the goal with the sort
55:33of Dodge stuff was was to try to do
55:34something about the the deficit, which
55:36is massive. Um
55:39where the interest payments exceed the
55:41amount of money spent on
55:44the Department of War. Like basically,
55:45if you add up all the money spent on
55:47um
55:49what is now the Department of War and
55:51the and and intelligence in the US, uh
55:54that is smaller than the interest
55:55payments on the debt. So, that well, we
55:57we we we need to sort of take a close
55:59look at spending,
56:00um and make sure that uh money is being
56:03spent in sensible ways and that it is
56:04not wasted or spent on on fraudulent
56:08activities. Um
56:10and um
56:11I got a lot of flak from this for this,
56:13obviously. Um
56:15but the the the people don't understand
56:17just how um
56:19simple it was for for the DOS team to
56:22approve payments. Um
56:24if if we had literally we we we just
56:27asked to have the contact information of
56:29the recipients,
56:31um or some evidence that say money was
56:33going to um
56:36its intended purpose.
56:37Um
56:38but
56:39over and over there we were we told oh
56:40we we need to wire money for
56:43some sort of important cause in Africa.
56:45And we're like, "Okay, but the wiring
56:47wiring instructions are to Deloitte &
56:49Touche in DC in Washington, DC, not to
56:52Africa.
56:53So, we would like to send the money to
56:54Africa. Can you please connect us with
56:56the recipients so we can send them the
56:58money directly?"
56:59And then we'd get silence.
57:01>> I I I have We don't need to relitigate
57:03DOS. I have no doubt that there was
57:05there's a lot of waste in the US
57:08government. I think probably
57:10>> Much worse than anyone could possibly
57:11imagine.
57:11>> But the way I I mean, I think there is
57:13it is a fair criticism that the way you
57:15shut down a whole bunch of programs
57:17probably in fact, certainly caused
57:19unnecessary suffering. I mean,
57:20>> No.
57:21>> No?
57:22>> No.
57:23>> You You don't buy that at all.
57:25>> It It caused a lot of complaining.
57:27>> You're watching my interview with Elon
57:29Musk. If you want to get early access to
57:32other interviews, subscribe to the
57:33economist by clicking the link above.
57:36Now, back to the interview. You don't
57:38So, you don't buy the idea that anybody,
57:40and to put it really crudely and simply,
57:41any kid in Africa died because of the
57:44suddenness with which
57:45>> Zero.
57:46>> I just don't think that's right. I just
57:48don't think my I mean, I've had people
57:49reporting in Africa
57:51>> How many NGOs are there that could that
57:53could that could step in? Cuz bear in
57:55mind, this it it was
57:57it happened quickly. So, this and there
57:59are literally tens of thousands of NGOs.
58:02>> Yeah, not everyone functions as far as
58:04as you do. If if if if funding is cut
58:06off for antiretrovirals overnight and it
58:09just stops, then people will die when
58:11they don't have access to them. And it
58:13just
58:13>> No, it No, only if they cannot get
58:15funding for that. But what the Gates
58:16Foundation has $50 billion.
58:19What's what What What about that?
58:21What about any one of a number of
58:22organizations? What about
58:24um
58:25the uh um
58:27>> Well, in many of these countries, USAID
58:28>> whatever last name is must be Bezos uh
58:31gave $50 billion. What about that?
58:34>> But you don't ask me Let's be practical.
58:35In many of these countries, USAID was
58:37the biggest funder. But I I don't want
58:38to have an
58:38>> USAID was a political organization.
58:41>> It may also have been that, but it was
58:42the biggest funder of of health care
58:44system. So, I I I am
58:46I'm very sure that there's
58:47>> of
58:48of regime change.
58:49>> And and there may well be benefits from
58:52having
58:53changed the system.
58:54>> funding was not stopped. It was moved to
58:55the State Department.
58:57>> It was stopped. There were huge numbers
58:58of things shut down in Africa that were
58:59that were kind of health related.
59:01>> of this. These claims are false.
59:05They're nonsense. And and absolute
59:08nonsense. But but obviously
59:11just for
59:12when funding is stopped for a fraudulent
59:16organizations or for something, do you
59:18think they're going to say Do you think
59:20they're going to say, "Well, we please
59:22keep funding the fraud?" Or do you think
59:24they're going to come up with a sad
59:25story that sounds sympathetic in order
59:28to get the funding restored. Obviously,
59:30it would be the latter, and that's
59:31exactly what they did.
59:33But, zero died because
59:36>> Well, that's what I That's what I That's
59:38what I would take issue with. I think
59:40you can I actually have a lot of
59:41sympathy for the change of the aid
59:44regime that the US under the Trump
59:46administration has precipitated.
59:48However, I think the pace and the
59:50suddenness with which it happened will
59:53almost certainly have caused unnecessary
59:55suffering and deaths. And I think both
59:57of those could have been
59:57>> that's totally false.
59:59>> Okay. Well, let's
1:00:00>> And obviously false because there there
1:00:02are are
1:00:04the amount of funding we're talking
1:00:05about uh is far less than what can be
1:00:07done that that that what can be
1:00:09supported by a private uh
1:00:12by a foundation like the Gates
1:00:13Foundation uh or McKenzie Bezos's
1:00:17foundation. Um she's given away tens of
1:00:19billions of dollars.
1:00:20Um
1:00:21the Gates Foundation has tens of
1:00:22billions of dollars. Uh they are capable
1:00:25of acting very quickly.
1:00:27Um and if they didn't, I would say
1:00:28they're equally responsible.
1:00:30>> I see. Okay.
1:00:31>> Obviously.
1:00:32>> All right. Fair point. Um
1:00:34>> Zero people
1:00:35>> I hear I hear you loud and clear.
1:00:37>> Zero.
1:00:38>> Hear you loud and clear.
1:00:39>> Obviously.
1:00:41>> Uh
1:00:41domestically, you you stepped away from
1:00:44those. It It was hard to do what you
1:00:46were trying to do. You've just explained
1:00:47it. But, this administration has gone in
1:00:50directions that I suspect you were not
1:00:52expecting
1:00:542 and 1/2 years ago. You know, the
1:00:55>> going to agree with I'm not going to
1:00:56agree with everything any administration
1:00:58does.
1:00:59>> Are you disappointed by this
1:01:00administration?
1:01:01>> No, I think this is a this
1:01:02administration on balance uh is is
1:01:05excellent.
1:01:07No No administration is perfect, but
1:01:09it's a vastly better than the
1:01:10alternative.
1:01:12>> Can we talk about Europe?
1:01:14A place that you are very, very focused
1:01:16on.
1:01:17Um
1:01:18>> that focused on Europe.
1:01:19>> I think judging by your posts, you're
1:01:21pretty concerned about Europe. Uh you
1:01:24you support
1:01:25>> I I once in a while I
1:01:26post something.
1:01:28>> It's reasonably frequently. It's not
1:01:29once in a while. But But I'm because I'm
1:01:31genuinely interested in this as someone
1:01:33who lives in Europe, lives in London.
1:01:35>> Yeah.
1:01:35>> Uh you paint a picture Well, first of
1:01:37all, you support not just the populist
1:01:39right, but the far right. In fact, very
1:01:41fringe parties in some countries.
1:01:42>> support the normal people.
1:01:44>> Okay.
1:01:44>> What do you call the far right falsely?
1:01:47>> You think it's the normal person. Okay.
1:01:49>> Yes.
1:01:50>> Um
1:01:50>> Literally, you could you could go back
1:01:51uh 10 or 15 years and these these these
1:01:55these policies were completely normal.
1:01:57In fact, you you uh one of the one of
1:01:59the one of the tricks I think is is is
1:02:01funny. I think it's it's quite funny is
1:02:03to like take a speech from Obama and
1:02:06Hillary and then and then go to someone
1:02:08and say uh who's who's sort of um
1:02:11you know, on the sort of what I call the
1:02:12lunatic left. Um and say, "What do you
1:02:15think of the speech by Trump?" And like,
1:02:16"Oh wow, he's the worst person ever."
1:02:18Actually, that was a speech by Obama. Or
1:02:20actually, that was a speech by Hillary.
1:02:23>> Uh I I
1:02:24I I I agree No, I agree that the center
1:02:26of gravity in this country has shifted.
1:02:28Certainly, the Democratic Party shifted
1:02:29to the left. But that's not what I'm
1:02:30talking about. I'm talking about people
1:02:31like Rupert Lowe. I'm talking about
1:02:32>> please. It's It's actually just normal
1:02:34people. Um it's just normal people. It's
1:02:36just normal people. And um the And And
1:02:39here are the principles. And And tell me
1:02:40which of these sound terrible. Um that
1:02:42we should have secure borders, that we
1:02:44should have safe cities,
1:02:47uh that we should have sensible
1:02:48spending.
1:02:49Which of those three are are are are are
1:02:51far right fringe?
1:02:53>> I would like to just admonish you
1:02:56>> Do you
1:02:56>> and the media
1:02:58for the absurd characterization of the
1:03:01far right. It is false and misleading
1:03:04and nonsense. Please keep this part in.
1:03:07>> We'll keep all of this in. But let me
1:03:08>> [laughter]
1:03:08>> Let me Let me
1:03:09>> Don't cut this part.
1:03:10>> Let me push back on that. Let me push
1:03:11back on that because you have
1:03:14>> You know, you have What is it? Close to
1:03:16250 million followers on X.
1:03:19>> Yeah, cuz I'm
1:03:19>> You say things like
1:03:21>> Popular guy.
1:03:21>> quote, "Civil war in Britain is
1:03:23inevitable. Just a question of when."
1:03:25>> yes.
1:03:26>> I mean, when were you last in the UK?
1:03:30>> Um a few years ago.
1:03:31>> Exactly. So So I live there. I'm there
1:03:34the whole time. That is nonsense.
1:03:35>> in a cloistered existence.
1:03:36>> No, I don't, actually. And the numbers
1:03:38also disprove what you say.
1:03:40>> What numbers?
1:03:41>> All the numbers about crime. London is a
1:03:42much safer city than any city in the
1:03:44United States. Violent crime in the UK
1:03:47is not where you think it is. In fact,
1:03:48it's coming down. You You have painted,
1:03:50and because you have so many followers,
1:03:51so many Americans believe it, a a kind
1:03:53of view that Europe and and the UK are
1:03:57kind of, you know, overrun with
1:03:59terrifying Muslim immigrants. There's
1:04:01rape on every corner. There's a sort of
1:04:03civilizational destruction.
1:04:04>> any of those things.
1:04:05>> not Well, you said "Civil war in Britain
1:04:07is inevitable." And then
1:04:08>> Yes, if current trends continue, it is.
1:04:10>> Why?
1:04:11>> Well, if if you have
1:04:13uh
1:04:14a
1:04:15large
1:04:16uh and growing, rapidly growing
1:04:19uh group of people whose beliefs are
1:04:22antithetical to Western beliefs,
1:04:26um at some point there will be a
1:04:28reckoning.
1:04:29They They They They will They will try
1:04:31to implement their views, and those who
1:04:33oppose it will oppose it, and that's
1:04:36what you call civil war.
1:04:38And obviously, this is the trend. Um and
1:04:41uh
1:04:42and and you absolutely do live in a
1:04:44cloistered existence. And if you'd like,
1:04:46we can go on a tour of Britain.
1:04:47>> Sure. I I'd be very happy to come on a
1:04:50tour of Britain.
1:04:51>> And then and you will see for yourself.
1:04:52>> country that I live in all the time, and
1:04:54you haven't been to a few years ago.
1:04:56>> literally 100 times.
1:04:58>> But when was the last time?
1:04:59>> Like literally a few years ago.
1:05:00>> You know why I this exercises me?
1:05:02Because you have really shaped opinion
1:05:05about the UK, and so many Americans I
1:05:08come across, and I have conversations
1:05:10with them, and they have been And I just
1:05:11had one the day, along the order of oh,
1:05:13London's such a dangerous place. How can
1:05:15you know there there are sort of
1:05:16grooming gangs everywhere. There are
1:05:18there's violence everywhere. This is a
1:05:20picture that people get from things that
1:05:22you post or that are posted on X. And
1:05:25for example, you you're posting for what
1:05:27was it? 48 hours of citizen vigilante.
1:05:30That film which, you know, paints a
1:05:32dystopian I've watched it.
1:05:34>> Yes.
1:05:34>> It was not fun. I watched it yesterday.
1:05:36It's not a very good movie. But it's
1:05:37also paints a dystopian picture of
1:05:39Europe. And it glorifies vigilante
1:05:42violence. It glorifies the murdering of
1:05:44a Muslim immigrant family.
1:05:46I honestly think that it is
1:05:47irresponsible for you to put that up on
1:05:49X.
1:05:50>> I think that it's it's a movie.
1:05:52Um and it's worth watching.
1:05:54>> You're clearly suggesting Europe is
1:05:56dystopian place and you
1:06:00>> Yes, I mean
1:06:02why aren't you more
1:06:04doing more to fight censorship in
1:06:06Europe? Why aren't you?
1:06:08>> I I
1:06:09>> seem to be doing anything to fight
1:06:10censorship in Europe.
1:06:11>> I I think that there are there are
1:06:13issues with
1:06:14>> in prison in the UK for social media
1:06:16posts. Do you think that's appropriate?
1:06:18>> No, I mean we've written editorials
1:06:19against it. But I don't think my point
1:06:21is with the UK.
1:06:22>> of thing that I think is bad.
1:06:23>> think if you and I agree with you, but I
1:06:24don't think you have to glorify
1:06:26vigilante violence and kind of, you
1:06:29know, post the things that you are doing
1:06:31and paint an entirely inaccurate picture
1:06:34of Europe that you do.
1:06:35>> think it is.
1:06:36>> We should we should do a tour of the UK.
1:06:39>> Yes, and one
1:06:40>> Cuz the UK has actually been very good
1:06:42at integrating immigrants. The UK has a
1:06:45is is very effective at doing that.
1:06:47There are problems. I'm the first to
1:06:49admit that there are problems.
1:06:50>> Yes, there are major problems.
1:06:51>> There are problems, but it is not it
1:06:52really is not what you are
1:06:55describing to or suggesting to your 240
1:06:59million followers it is. And I think
1:07:00there's a problem.
1:07:01>> No, I think I'm I think I'm spot on.
1:07:04>> We'll we'll have to
1:07:05>> why you have freedom of speech or at
1:07:07least
1:07:08>> You don't want people to can are wrong,
1:07:09but your point is not [clears throat]
1:07:10that you're not just saying I have every
1:07:11right to say what I want. You're saying,
1:07:13you know, I am right about Europe and I
1:07:15really don't think you are.
1:07:17>> I think I am.
1:07:19>> I think you will find that most people
1:07:21in Europe or many people in Europe don't
1:07:23think you're right about it, but let's
1:07:24let's come to that. But
1:07:25>> Because the media keeps ignoring what's
1:07:26ignoring reality.
1:07:29>> I don't think that's true, either. I
1:07:30really I really
1:07:31>> by the TV and conventional media.
1:07:32>> but And why are you This is I guess the
1:07:35even to me sort of the bigger picture
1:07:37question.
1:07:38Why do you focus on this? Why are you
1:07:40interested in it? Because on the one
1:07:42hand,
1:07:43you know, we started this conversation
1:07:45and you described to me this
1:07:46extraordinary transformative
1:07:49amazing sort
1:07:52Yeah, civilization-changing
1:07:53stuff that's happening in the next 10
1:07:55years.
1:07:55>> Yes.
1:07:55>> And yet you're also, you know, a an
1:07:58ongoing participant in the worst kind of
1:08:01tribalism
1:08:02uh you know, cesspit of social media.
1:08:05Like, how does that fit? Are you, you
1:08:07know, on the one They're two very
1:08:09different views of the world.
1:08:11>> Yeah, I don't think they're
1:08:12inconsistent.
1:08:15>> But why do you do the latter one, the
1:08:16tribalism? I mean, people say that
1:08:18you're a racist. People say that you're,
1:08:20you know, there's all kinds of things
1:08:21said about you, which
1:08:23I'm sure you would disagree with. Um but
1:08:27I just don't understand what is the
1:08:28motivation for doing that. Are you
1:08:29fermenting
1:08:30>> is is um
1:08:31she's half Indian and my
1:08:34my and I have four children with her.
1:08:36Um
1:08:38you know, um
1:08:40one of them was named after an
1:08:42a famous Indian physicist. Um so I I
1:08:45would say I'm not racist and also
1:08:48uh
1:08:48the you know, if you look at the
1:08:50people that are employed at my
1:08:52companies,
1:08:53um
1:08:54you know, we have senior executives of
1:08:56all races.
1:08:57Uh there's there's there's I don't think
1:08:59there's any racism there.
1:09:00>> Are you anti-Muslim?
1:09:03>> Um I am
1:09:06I'm I'm against
1:09:08uh
1:09:10having if if if if people are coming to
1:09:13a country
1:09:14with
1:09:16antithetical views
1:09:19um
1:09:20I I am against that.
1:09:23I I'm against that. You know, I'm
1:09:24against um
1:09:28I I I'm against rape and murder.
1:09:30I'm against uh
1:09:33the
1:09:34imposition of
1:09:37rules and laws that are
1:09:41contrary to what we've
1:09:45come to accept in the West.
1:09:48Um
1:09:49and um
1:09:52and I think it's it's it's a crying
1:09:53shame that the sort of traditional media
1:09:56like you
1:09:57um
1:09:58uh
1:09:59don't recognize this.
1:10:00>> First of all, I think that you hugely
1:10:03exaggerate
1:10:04the challenges that Europe faces.
1:10:06Secondly, in areas I completely agree
1:10:07with you. I I I think that, you know,
1:10:10the constraints on freedom of speech in
1:10:11in the UK in certain areas are
1:10:13problematic.
1:10:14What worries me is that the people you
1:10:17are supporting are really quite vile
1:10:19people in some areas. Like some members
1:10:21of the AfD, Alice Weidel, whom I've met,
1:10:23is a perfectly thoughtful person. But in
1:10:26her party, are some real neo-Nazis. Are
1:10:29some really, really awful people. And
1:10:32your blanket support of this kind of
1:10:35party with 240 million followers means
1:10:37that you have
1:10:38a power in Europe
1:10:40that I think perhaps you don't realize
1:10:43the scale of impact you have. But you
1:10:45can
1:10:46>> I hope I hope I'm having a big impact.
1:10:48>> But why? Why should you Why should you
1:10:50be able to shape European politics? What
1:10:52You don't even live there.
1:10:53>> I think of it as the sort of the West
1:10:55collectively.
1:10:56>> But do you see why this makes people
1:10:58think
1:10:59that this man, who has all this power,
1:11:01he's the world's richest man, he thinks
1:11:03he has a right to influence our
1:11:04politics. It makes people It's why, you
1:11:07know, we started this conversation
1:11:08saying superlatives, it's why people
1:11:09loathe you.
1:11:11I mean, some people do loathe you.
1:11:12>> Yes, some people do.
1:11:14>> But do you understand why?
1:11:16Do you think what you're doing is
1:11:17helpful for Western democracy?
1:11:18>> maybe some people do loathe me. I And
1:11:20that's And that's probably true. I don't
1:11:22care. Um
1:11:23the uh
1:11:25but but the fact that uh
1:11:27as you pointed out
1:11:29a quarter billion people follow me is
1:11:31that I think a lot more people actually
1:11:32like me than don't.
1:11:35And I think a lot more people hate you
1:11:37and the media uh more than you realize.
1:11:41Do you realize the media is despised? Do
1:11:43Do you realize that that journalists how
1:11:45the view of journalists is
1:11:47is
1:11:48is like
1:11:50it's it's like the a favorable view of
1:11:51journalists is like 15%.
1:11:53>> in the United States.
1:11:55>> You
1:11:55So so the shoe is on the other foot.
1:11:57They hate you.
1:12:00They hate you
1:12:01far more than they hate me.
1:12:03>> I think there is certainly lots of trust
1:12:05in journalism. I think in part and there
1:12:08have been mistakes by journalists and
1:12:10journalism. I totally acknowledge that.
1:12:12But I also think that the kind of
1:12:14polarized environment, particularly on
1:12:17social media, fostered by the kinds of
1:12:19things you are pushing on X actually
1:12:21helps this. Makes it worse.
1:12:23>> I don't think so.
1:12:27I think I think you're the problem, the
1:12:29media.
1:12:30Um and And And speaking of loathing, you
1:12:33are loathed far more than I am. And you
1:12:35don't seem to even realize that.
1:12:37>> I think very few people know who I am
1:12:38relative to you, so I don't think I play
1:12:40in the same game.
1:12:41>> collectively. Um
1:12:43so
1:12:44I mean, you're hated.
1:12:48Do you even Do you even know that?
1:12:50You probably don't.
1:12:51>> I I like to think that I'm aware of
1:12:53my own personal shortcomings and the
1:12:55economist shortcomings and I'm our world
1:12:57view shortcomings. But what we stand for
1:13:00as you as you know is liberal values,
1:13:03traditional classical liberal values
1:13:06where we worry about concentrations of
1:13:08power
1:13:09and we believe in the individual and the
1:13:11dignity of the individual. I and
1:13:13individual freedom. I firmly believe
1:13:16that and I have long thought that you
1:13:17were a classical liberal. But when I
1:13:19read what you post classical liberal
1:13:22J.S. Mill, limited government,
1:13:24individual freedom.
1:13:27But when I read what you post
1:13:30on your feed, I sometimes wonder whether
1:13:32you really do believe in that.
1:13:34Um
1:13:35I literally said, "Look, I believe in uh
1:13:39safe cities, secure borders,
1:13:41and sensible spending
1:13:43with
1:13:44with respect to government." Um That
1:13:47doesn't make me right-wing at all. Um
1:13:50in the least.
1:13:51>> Does the US or do European countries
1:13:53score better on those?
1:13:55>> The US is better.
1:13:56>> No.
1:13:57>> Yes.
1:13:57>> Safe cities, much more dangerous in the
1:13:59US than the UK. Sensible spending,
1:14:02bigger deficit here, out of control, you
1:14:04managed you you you failed to reduce it.
1:14:06Secure borders, now under the Trump
1:14:08administration, I agree with you, before
1:14:10not. But on two out of three,
1:14:12unequivocally, Europe is in a better
1:14:14place. Yet you seem to paint a picture
1:14:15of Europe being a hellhole.
1:14:18>> I don't think Europe's a hellhole.
1:14:21>> Okay, we can agree on something.
1:14:22>> When when did I ever say that?
1:14:24>> Well, the picture you paint of Europe
1:14:25>> just you're making up things.
1:14:27>> No, I'm not. You you say
1:14:29you say
1:14:30civil war in Britain is inevitable and
1:14:32then you you've you
1:14:34basically proselytize for this citizen
1:14:36vigilante film which really does paint
1:14:38Europe as a hellhole. It just starts
1:14:39with you know ominous music and it says
1:14:41Europe.
1:14:42>> Well, there are there was out of control
1:14:45rape and murder.
1:14:49>> It's more dangerous in this country than
1:14:50it is in Europe.
1:14:52>> Uh where where there is danger in this
1:14:54country is is because
1:14:56we we we fail to incarcerate
1:14:59uh repeat violent offenders.
1:15:02Um and that's uh you know, the classic
1:15:04sort of Soros DA
1:15:07uh or judges that fail to incarcerate
1:15:09repeat violent offenders. And if
1:15:11somebody gets arrested
1:15:1350 times, literally
1:15:15um for violent crimes, uh
1:15:19and and eventually they're going to kill
1:15:20somebody.
1:15:22So you So you either you either
1:15:23incarcerate them or people will die.
1:15:26>> I think the prevalence of guns has quite
1:15:27a lot to do with it, too.
1:15:29I mean, this is a much more dangerous
1:15:30country. Murder rates are much higher in
1:15:32large part because there's so much There
1:15:34are so many guns.
1:15:35>> Well, let me give you an interesting
1:15:36number. There are more people that die
1:15:38in Europe from heat deaths than gun than
1:15:40people that die from gun deaths in
1:15:42America.
1:15:43Why aren't you
1:15:44uh
1:15:45writing an article about air
1:15:46conditioning?
1:15:47>> Well, we've done several on air
1:15:48conditioning, and we had on our cover
1:15:49last week um
1:15:51a whole a whole long piece about, you
1:15:53know, why the
1:15:54>> Pro-regulation?
1:15:55>> Yeah, we're very pro-regulation.
1:15:56>> Okay, good. Well, good.
1:15:57>> Very pro-regulation. You should read us.
1:15:58Absolutely. I'm I I think I I think you
1:16:00have a a a view of The Economist that
1:16:04is not entirely accurate. So, I will
1:16:07You come look at England, start reading
1:16:09The Economist, and I will um
1:16:11you know,
1:16:13stand corrected on my criticism of you
1:16:16in this area.
1:16:18>> The There There are
1:16:20There are many parts of Britain um
1:16:23and Europe which are not a
1:16:27safe. You You You can't just walk
1:16:29around.
1:16:30>> But there are far more in this country.
1:16:32Far more.
1:16:33>> No, I don't think so.
1:16:35>> All right, let's go and get my
1:16:35fact-checkers to check then.
1:16:37>> Yeah, I don't I don't think that's true.
1:16:39Um
1:16:40>> Let's move on from this because uh I
1:16:42think I've got a sense of why you're
1:16:44doing what you're doing.
1:16:45>> The point is not that that that the
1:16:47question is not is that is is America
1:16:48perfect? Question is
1:16:50does Europe have a serious and growing
1:16:52problem?
1:16:52>> is which is which is more dangerous.
1:16:54That's where we started this.
1:16:55>> Europe has a serious and growing
1:16:56problem.
1:16:57I'm I'm I'm not going to
1:16:59say that the United States has no
1:17:01problems. Of course it does.
1:17:03Um
1:17:03but
1:17:05you know, we we should all try to to
1:17:07address these issues.
1:17:08>> We can agree on that. We should all try
1:17:10to address the problems. My point was
1:17:11simply that I think you exaggerate the
1:17:13scale of Europe's problem and that
1:17:14>> I think you people are asleep at the
1:17:16switch and do not realize the magnitude
1:17:19of the issue.
1:17:20>> I also think that your interventions,
1:17:23however well-intentioned they may be,
1:17:26risk making Europe's problem a lot
1:17:28worse.
1:17:28>> How?
1:17:29>> Because you are putting your support
1:17:31behind people who are
1:17:32proto-authoritarians,
1:17:34who are not trying simply to you know,
1:17:37make sure there is better integration of
1:17:39Muslims or to to secure the borders, but
1:17:41who have very clear fascist tendencies
1:17:44and you will cause huge divisions within
1:17:46Europe.
1:17:47>> I think what you're saying is total
1:17:48fiction. Um and really I
1:17:52I'm simply saying that there needs to be
1:17:54there needs to
1:17:55that Europe has to have secure borders.
1:17:57>> Okay.
1:17:58>> and so not let in vast numbers of people
1:18:00who with views that are antithetical to
1:18:04the accepted views in in Europe and and
1:18:06where they will where they will not be
1:18:08some level of
1:18:09uh
1:18:10safe cultural integration. This is
1:18:12simply common sense.
1:18:13>> If all you are saying is Europe should
1:18:14have secure borders, I completely agree
1:18:16with you. Then
1:18:18then I have misunderstood what your
1:18:20interventions have been on social media
1:18:22cuz that is not what the view I have not
1:18:26what I would conclude having seen what
1:18:27the people you are supporting and the
1:18:29things you're doing. But if that's your
1:18:30goal, I share your goal that Europe
1:18:32should have secure borders. I think
1:18:33that's perfectly agreeable.
1:18:35That gets me to a question.
1:18:36>> And let me let me explain what what the
1:18:37fundamental forcing function here is
1:18:40uh for why the borders are not secure,
1:18:42which is
1:18:43uh
1:18:45When you have a welfare state that
1:18:48provides
1:18:49substantial benefits uh to anyone who
1:18:52comes there,
1:18:53um you create a very powerful economic
1:18:56forcing function
1:18:57for anyone who is below that standard of
1:18:59living to come to Europe.
1:19:02Um it is it is a an obvious
1:19:05powerful
1:19:07driving force.
1:19:08Um
1:19:09and um people will come there if if
1:19:11their standard of living is
1:19:13uh from what they get in Europe is above
1:19:16where they are elsewhere in the world.
1:19:18It's very basic.
1:19:20>> agree with that. I don't I don't
1:19:21disagree.
1:19:21>> very basic
1:19:23incentive structure. Um
1:19:24>> Economic conditions, economic
1:19:27influences determine a lot of migration.
1:19:30I think asylum is a separate issue, but
1:19:33I think you I think you're absolutely
1:19:34right. There are there are um pressures
1:19:36for migration. However, there are other
1:19:38things that you haven't focused on,
1:19:39which is migration brings a lot of
1:19:40benefits. And it also particularly does
1:19:42so in a continent like Europe, which is
1:19:43a rapidly aging continent. So, we can
1:19:46agree that completely uncontrolled
1:19:49borders are a bad idea.
1:19:51But, I am
1:19:53I think Europe benefits from having
1:19:56immigration, controlled immigration. It
1:19:57brings
1:19:58>> Yes, I I I'm in favor of immigration.
1:20:00Obviously, I'd be hypocritical if I
1:20:02wasn't since I am an immigrant to the
1:20:03United States.
1:20:04Um I'm in favor of immigration if the
1:20:06person immigrating um is going to be a
1:20:09productive member of society,
1:20:10um if they're going to be honest, and if
1:20:13they're not going to mistreat people in
1:20:14that country they're going to.
1:20:17>> I can agree on all of those.
1:20:19>> Yes.
1:20:19>> But, I think Europe does better on that
1:20:21than you give it credit for. That's I
1:20:23think where we disagree. But, let's move
1:20:25on. Tell me what do you think people get
1:20:27most wrong about you?
1:20:29>> Well, I mean, you got a you just got a
1:20:30whole bunch of things wrong about me.
1:20:33Pretty much everything in the last Just
1:20:34rewind the last 20 minutes is all wrong.
1:20:38>> So I got we got I got wrong [laughter]
1:20:40your your
1:20:42>> Let's not be repetitive here.
1:20:44>> Okay. So So that political side of you
1:20:46people get most wrong.
1:20:47>> Yeah, my political views are very are
1:20:50centrist. They're not
1:20:52far right. And frankly calling it far
1:20:55right I think is an insult uh
1:20:59to
1:21:00to history, an insult to many peoples,
1:21:03and it is
1:21:04an outrageous falsehood. Um
1:21:08It's It's completely absurd. I I
1:21:10literally have stated my position, which
1:21:12is that And And I've been very clear
1:21:13about this, which is that there need to
1:21:15be secure borders, that um
1:21:18If If there's If there's an influx of
1:21:19immigrants, they they they they need to
1:21:21be people who will agree that the with
1:21:25with with Western ideals, with Western
1:21:26values. And if they don't, and if And if
1:21:29there's a long-term
1:21:30uh
1:21:31growth of people who do not or or in
1:21:34some cases are adamantly opposed to
1:21:36Western values, you are setting yourself
1:21:39up for civil war. This is obvious.
1:21:42A child can see this.
1:21:44So So But this is This is not a
1:21:45right-wing view. I'm simply stating
1:21:47reality.
1:21:48>> Well, I think we can both agree that
1:21:50evidence will be able to decide which of
1:21:52us is more or less right. And we will
1:21:54find evidence for both of our views in
1:21:56different parts of Europe. The question
1:21:57is what the overall is.
1:21:58>> I'm very good at predicting the future.
1:22:00I'm not perfect, but I'm very good at
1:22:01predicting the future. Uh my batting
1:22:03average is is very high for a human. Um
1:22:07But this this does have somewhat of of a
1:22:09Cassandra effect, where where people
1:22:13don't believe that what I'm saying is
1:22:15likely to be true um because
1:22:20you know, I I I can see into the future
1:22:23with a higher bet not perfectly, but
1:22:24with a higher
1:22:26probability of success than most people.
1:22:28So, and including things that people
1:22:31believe to be
1:22:32in some cases counterintuitive.
1:22:34Um
1:22:35and uh again, I'm not saying I'm always
1:22:37right. I certainly am not. But but my
1:22:40batting average is very good.
1:22:42Um
1:22:44But but this this this does have, like I
1:22:46said, a Cassandra effect where people
1:22:48don't realize that what I'm saying will
1:22:50come to pass.
1:22:51Um
1:22:54Maybe not exactly in the timing that I
1:22:55thought, but it will come to pass.
1:22:58Um
1:23:00and uh
1:23:03Yeah.
1:23:04The
1:23:05history will write the verdict.
1:23:08But I think you will see that
1:23:11very little of what I've said
1:23:13um is inaccurate.
1:23:15Um and
1:23:18a supermajority of what I've said
1:23:22is very accurate and will come to pass.
1:23:25Unless there are there's some change in
1:23:26direction.
1:23:27>> Do you have higher confidence level in
1:23:29your expectations of the future for AI,
1:23:33the first part of our conversation, or
1:23:36the latter part, the political part?
1:23:39>> Um the
1:23:43I mean, AI is
1:23:44digital superintelligence
1:23:46is called the singularity, like a black
1:23:48hole, because
1:23:50you don't know what's going to happen
1:23:51after that. It's and it sort of sucks in
1:23:53everything.
1:23:54So, I think
1:23:56really
1:23:58in terms of the the really big macro
1:24:00effects here,
1:24:04AI and robots will really dominate
1:24:05everything.
1:24:09So,
1:24:10on on a on a time scale that is
1:24:13less than 10 years.
1:24:14>> Which probably renders this other stuff
1:24:16that we've been talking about less
1:24:17important and less relevant.
1:24:19>> The the AI
1:24:22AI robotics
1:24:23revolution will happen
1:24:29sooner than
1:24:30it will it will happen sooner than civil
1:24:32war in in in in Britain.
1:24:35I would say civil war in Britain is
1:24:36probably 20 years away.
1:24:38Um
1:24:40and the AI
1:24:42robot singularity
1:24:44is 10 years away.
1:24:46>> Well, hopefully these benign all
1:24:47powerful AIs will prevent such outcomes.
1:24:51>> They probably will.
1:24:52>> Eamonn
1:24:53I don't agree with everything you say,
1:24:54but it's always absolutely [music]
1:24:55fascinating to talk to you. Thank you
1:24:56very much indeed.
1:24:57>> Well, you're welcome. I'm not boring.
1:24:59>> You're definitely not boring.

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of The full-length interview with Elon Musk | The Economist by The Economist, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 15,184 words across 2,702 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.