Elon Musk: OpenAI Betrayal, His Future at Tesla, and the Next Big Thing - Grokipedia

Let's get started. You know, we wanted to try something new this week. Every week, you know, I get a little upset. Things perturb me, Saks. And when it does, I just yell and scream, Disgratia! And so I bought the domain name Disgratia.com for no reason other than my own amusement. But you know what? I'm not alone in my absolute disgust at what's going on in the world. So this week, we're going to bring out a new feature here on the All In Podcast, Disgratia Corner. Disgraciad. Disgraciad. He was the best guy around. What about the people he murdered? What? Murder! You can act like a man! What the matter with you? He's just killed a little f***ing manis. He insulted him a little bit. I snagged and I want the sticks! Your hair was in the toilet water. Disgusting. I had to suffocate you, you little f***. It's a f***ing disgrace. Disgraciad. Disgratia. This is fantastic. This is our new feature. Chamath, you look like you're ready to go. Why don't you tell everybody who gets your Disgratia this week? Wait, we all had to come with a Disgratia? You really? You missed the memo. All right, fine. Enough. I got one. I got one. Okay, all right. Just calm down. My Disgratia corner goes to Jason Calcanis. Oh, here we go. Come on, man. You can't. And Pete Buttigieg, where they, in the first 30 seconds of the interview, compared virtue signaling points about how each one worked at various moments at Amnesty International. Absolutely. Literally affecting zero change, making no progress in the world, but collecting a badge that they used to hold over other people. Disgraciade. We wrote a lot of letters. We wrote a lot of letters. Disgraciade. Which is good. That means it's like a good one because it's behind the scenes. Disgraciade. Jason Kalkanis and Pete Buttigieg. Disgraciade. Great. I'm glad that I get the first one. And you can imagine what's coming next week for you. I saw the Sydney Sweeney dress today trending on social. Disgraciad. It's too much. What? It's too much. What is it? I didn't even know what this is. You didn't see it? Bring it up, Nick. Pull up a picture, okay? Bring it up. It's a little floppy. Que le vestito et propos. How is this disgaciad? What are you talking about? The dress is too much. It's disgraceful. A little bit of, like, look at this. Oh, my God. Too much. It elegant Too much In my day Saks a little cleavage maybe perhaps in the 90s or 2000s some side view This is too much Hey guys Hey. Great highbrow subject meta. Yeah. We were discussing oral politics and Sydney Sweden's dress. I don't know. It was trending on X. Hi, Dad. Hi, Dad. Put away the phone, Jason. what's going on with the algorithm i'm getting sydney sweeney's dress all day and last week Well, maybe you should stop favoriting it. I think you've favorited it 15 times. That poor Sax got invited to SlutCon for two weeks straight on the algorithm. I say the algorithm has become if you demonstrate You can't even tell if that's a joke or a real thing. It's a real thing in San Francisco. It's all too real. It's actually f***ing real. SlutCon is a real thing. For real? But I've noticed, yeah, if you demonstrate interest in anything on X now, if you click on it, God forbid you like something, man, the algorithm is on it. It will give you more of that. It will give you a lot more. Yes, yes. So we did have an issue. and we still have somewhat of an issue where there was an important bug that was figured out that was solved over the weekend which caused in-network posts to be not shown so you basically if you followed someone you wouldn't see them wouldn't see their posts it's obviously a big bug major bug then the algorithm was not probably taking into account if you just dwelt on something. But if you interacted with it, it would go hog wild. So if you, as David said, if you were to favorite, reply, or engage with it in some way, it is going to get you a torrent of that same thing. Oh, Zach! So maybe you What was your interaction Did you bookmark Slakhan I think you bookmarked it Here what I thought was good about it though is all of a sudden If you happen to switch Sidney Sweeney's boobs, then you're going to get a lot more of it. Yeah. Okay. But what I thought was good about it was that you would see who else had a take on the same subject matter. And that actually has been a useful part of it. Yeah. So you do you do get more of a you get more of like a 360 view on whatever it is that you're shown interested. Yeah, yeah. It just it's like it was giving you if you take a you'd have like it was just going too far. Obviously, it was overcorrecting. It had too much gain on just the gain way too high on any interaction. You would then get a tar into that. It's like it's like, oh, you had a taste of it. We're going to give you three helpings. We're going to give you the food funnel. And that's all being done. I assume it's all being done with Grok now. So it's not like the old hard-coded algorithm, or is it using Grok? Well, what's happening is we're gradually deleting the legacy Twitter heuristics. Now, the problem is that it's like as you delete these heuristics, it turns out the one heuristic, the one bug was covering for the other bug. And so when you delete one side of the bug, you know, it's like that meme with the internet where there's like this very complicated machine and there's like a tiny little wooden stick. Yeah. And that's keeping it going, which was, I guess, AWS East or whatever had something like that. You know, when somebody pulled out the little stick. Oops. I think it would be good if it. Half of Earth, you know. It would be great if it showed like one person you follow and then like it blended the old style, which was just reverse chronological of your friends, the original version with this new version. So you get like a little bit of both. Well, you can still you still have the everyone still has the following tab. Yeah. Now, something we're going to be adding is the ability to have a curated following tab, because the problem is like if you follow some people and they're maybe a little more prolific than you're, you know. Scalable. Well, Robert Scalable. You know, you follow someone and some people are much more, you know say a lot more than others That makes the following tab hard to use So we gonna add an option where you can have the following tab be curated So Grok will say what are the most interesting things posted by your friends And we'll show you that in the following tab. It will also be the option of learning everything. But I think having that option will make the following tab much more useful. so it'll be a curated list of people you follow like ideally the most interesting stuff that they've said which is kind of what you want to look at and then we've mostly fixed the bug which would give you way too much of something if you interacted with a particular subject matter and then the really big change which is where Grok literally reads everything that's posted to the platform um uh which we're actually there's there's about a hundred million posts per day so it's a hundred million pieces of content per day um i think that's actually just maybe just in english i think it goes beyond that because it's outside of english um so uh grok is gonna we're gonna start off reading the uh really what what grok thinks are the top 10 million of the 100 million and And we'll actually read them and understand them and categorize them and match them to users. It's like this is not a job humans could ever do. And then once that is scaling, we'll add the entire 100 million a day. So it's literally going to read through 100 million things and show you the things that it thinks out of 100 million posts per day, what are the most interesting posts to you? how much of Colossus will that take? A lot of work. Yeah, that's like, is it tens of thousands of servers like to do that every day? Yeah, my guess is it's probably on the order of 50K H100, something like that. Wow, and that will replace search. So you'll be able to actually search on Twitter and find things in like with a plain language. We'll have semantic search where you can just ask a question and it will show you all content, whether that is text, pictures, or video that matches your search query semantically. How's it been? Three years in. This is a three-year anniversary, like a couple of days ago. This is three years? Yeah. Yeah, remember it was Halloween? Halloween? yeah halloween's back halloween's back but it was the the weekend you took over was halloween yeah we had a good time yeah uh yeah three years we will think three years from now yeah what's the takeaway three years later you were you you're obviously don't regret buying it It saved free speech. That was good. It seemed to have turned that holding around. That was, I think, a big part of your mission. But then you added it to XAI, which makes it incredibly valuable as a data source. So when you look back on it, the reason you bought it is to stop crazy woke mind virus and make truth exist in the world again. Great. Mission accomplished. And now it has this great future. Yeah, we've got community notes. You can also ask Garth about anything you see on the platform. You know, just press the Grok icon on any X post and it will analyze it for you and research it as much as you want. So you can basically have, just by tapping the Grok icon, you can assess whether that post is the truth, the whole truth or nothing but the truth, or whether there's something supplemental you need to be explained. so I think it's actually we've made a lot of progress towards yeah freedom of speech and people being able to tell whether something is false or not propaganda the recent update to Grok is actually I think very good at piercing through propaganda so and then we used that latest version of Grok to create Grokopedia which I think is much more it's it's not just i think more um neutral um that then and more accurate than wikipedia but actually it's a lot more information than a wikipedia page did you seed it with wikipedia actually take a step back how did you guys how did you do this um well we used ai but meaning like totally unsupervised just a complete training run on its own totally synthetic data, no seeded set, nothing? Well it was only just recently possible for us to do this So we finished training on a maximally true a version of Grok that is good at cogent analysis So breaking down any given argument into its axiomatic elements, assessing whether those axioms are, the basic test for cogency, the axioms are likely to be true. They're not contradictory. that the conclusion most likely follows from those axioms. So we just trained Grok on a lot of critical thinking. So it just got really good at critical thinking, which was quite hard. And then we took that version of Grok and said, okay, cycle through the million most popular articles in Wikipedia and add, modify, and delete. So that means research the rest of the internet, whatever's publicly available, and correct the Wikipedia article to fix mistakes, but also add a lot more context. um so sometimes really the the nature of the propaganda is that um you know facts are stated that are technically true but are not represent do not properly represent a picture of the individual or event this is critical because when you have a bio as you do actually all do on wikipedia over time it's just the people you fired or you you beat in business or have an axe to grind so it just slowly becomes like the place where everybody you know kind of who hates you then puts their information i looked at mine it was so much more representative and it was five times longer six times longer and the what it gave weight to uh was much more accurate much more accurate and this opportunity was sitting here i think for a long time and it's just great that you got to it because they they don't update my page but you know i don't know, twice a month with, you know, and then who is the secret cobble is 50 people who are anonymous, who decide what's good gets put on it, it was a much better, much more updated page in version one. Yes, this is versions one as we put it as we show at the top. So I do think actually by the time we get to version one 1 it be 10 times better But even at this early stage as you just mentioned it not just that it correcting errors but it is creating a more accurate realistic, and fleshed out description of people and events. And subject matters. You can look at articles on physics in GrokPita. They're much better than Wikipedia by far. This is what I was going to ask you. Do you think that you can take this corpus of pages now and get Google to de-boost Wikipedia or boost Grokipedia in traditional search? Because a lot of people still find this and they believe that it's authoritative because it comes up number one. So how do we do that? How do you flip Google? Yeah, so if Grokipedia is used elsewhere, like if people cite it on their websites or post about it on social media, or when they do a search, when Grokipedia shows up, they click on Grokipedia, it will naturally rise in Google's rankings. I did text Sundar because even sort of a day after launch, if you typed in Grokipedia, Google would just say, did you mean Wikipedia? Wikipedia, yeah. And it wouldn't even bring Grokipedia up at all. Yeah, that's true. How's the usage then? Have you seen good growth since it launched? Yeah. Is it very early? It went super viral. So we're seeing it cited all over the place. But yeah, and I think we'll see it used more and more as people refer to it. And people will judge for themselves. When you read a Grokipedia article about a subject or a person that you know a lot about, and you see, wow, this is way better than Wikipedia, it's more comprehensive, it's way more accurate it's neutral instead of biased then you're going to forward those links around and say that this is actually the better source Grotkipedia will succeed I think very well because it is fundamentally a superior product to Wikipedia it is a better source of information and we haven't even added images and video yet So that's good. Really? Awesome Yeah we going to add a lot of video So using Grok Imagine to create videos And so if you trying to explain something Grok Imagine can take the text from Grokpedia and then generate a video, an explanatory video. So if you're trying to understand anything from how to tie a bow tie to how do certain chemical reactions work or really anything, dietary things, medical things. You can just go and see the video of how it works. That's created by Aino. When you have this version that's maximally truth-seeking as a model, do you think that there needs to be a better eval or a benchmark that people can point to that shows how off of the truth things are? So that if you're going to start a training run with Common Crawl, or if you're going to use Reddit, or if you're going to use it. Is it important to be able to say, hey, hold on a second. This eval just sucked. You guys suck on this eval. It's just this is crappy data. Yeah, I guess I'm not sure. I think there are a lot of evals out there. I have complete confidence that Rockopeta is going to succeed because Wikipedia is actually not a very good product. Yeah. the information is sparse, wrong, and out of date. And it doesn't have, you know, there are very few images. There's basically no video. So if you have something which is, you know, accurate, comprehensive, has videos, where moreover you can ask, if there's any part of it that you're curious about, you can just highlight it and ask Grok right there. Like if you're trying to learn something, it's just great. It's not going to be a little bit better than Wikipedia. It's going to be a hundred times better than Wikipedia. Elon, do you think you'll see like good uniform usage? Like if you look back on the last three years since you bought Twitter, there was a lot of people after you bought Twitter that said, I'm leaving Twitter, Elon's bought it, I'm going to go to this other wherever the hell they went. and there's all these news. And there's all these, and there's all these articles saying. What happened to that creature, you know? Yeah, but blue sky is falling is my favorite. I guess my question is, as you destroy... the woke mind viral kind of control of the system. And as you bring truth to the system, whether the system is through Grokipedia or through X, do people like just look for confirmation bias and they actually don't accept the truth? Like what do you, or do you think people are actually going to see the truth and change and things are gonna change? Yeah. But I mean, is that like- You thought Sydney Sweeney's boobs were great. I just see mine. Looking good. Yeah. Solid week up there. A little sheer. Yeah. I think we just got flagged on YouTube again. Yeah, that was definitely going to give us a censorship moment. Grade A moves. No, but do people change their mind? I mean. I could take it. There's no such thing as grade A move. It's off the rails already. David, you were trying to ask a serious question. Go ahead. Well, I just want to know if people change their mind. Like, can you actually change people's minds by putting the truth in front of them? Or do people just take, you know, they kind of ignore the truth because they feel like they're in some sort of camp and they're like, I'm on this side. They want the confirmation bias. They want the confirmation bias and they want to stay in a camp and they want to be tribal about everything. um it is remarkable how much people believe things simply because it is their the the belief of the of their in-group you know whatever their sort of political uh or ideological tribe is um so um i mean there's some some pretty hilarious videos of you know um you know uh there's like some guy going around um is like a racist nazi or whatever and and then and then and he was like trying to show them the videos of the thing that they are talking about, where he is in fact condemning the Nazis in the strongest possible terms and condemning racism in the strongest possible terms. And they literally don't even want to watch the videos. So, yeah, people, or at least some people, they will stick to whatever their ideological views are, whatever their sort of political tribal views are, no matter what. The evidence could be staring them in the face and they're just going to be a flat earther. You know there is no evidence that you could show to a flat earther to convince them the world around because everything is just a lie uh the world is flat type of thing i think the the ability to hit at grok in a reply and ask it a question in the thread has really become like a truth missile on the platform so when i put up metrics or something like that i reply to myself and i say at grok is the information i just shared correct and can you find any better information and please tell me if my argument is correct or if I'm wrong. And then it goes through and then it DMs Saks and then Saks gets in my replies and tries to correct me. No, but it does actually a really good job of like, and that combined with community notes. Now you've got like two swings at bat, the community's consensus view, and then Grok coming in. I think it'd be like really interesting if Grok on like really powerful threads kind of did like its own version of community notes and had it sitting there ahead of time. You know, like you could look at a thread and it just had next to it, you know, or maybe on like the specific statistic, you could click on it and it would show you like, ah, here's where that statistic's from. I mean, you can, I mean, pretty much every, I mean, essentially every post on X, unless it's like advertising or something, has the Grok symbol on it. And you just tap that symbol and you're one tap away from a Grok analysis, literally just one tap. And we don't want to clutter the interface with where it's providing an explanation but i'm just saying if you go on x right now it's one tap to get to get grok's analysis and grok will research the the the x post and give you an accurate answer um and then you can even ask us to do further research and further due diligence and you you can go as far down the rabbit hole as you want as you want to go but i do think like this is um you know the consistent with we want x to be the the best source of truth on the on the planet by far and i think it is and where you hear any and all points of view, but where those points of view are corrected by human editors with community notes. And the essence of community notes is that people who historically disagree agree that this community note is correct. And all of the community notes code is open source and the data is open source. So you can recreate any community note from scratch independently. By and large, it's worked very well. Yeah. Yeah. I think we originally had the idea to have you back on the pod because it was a three year anniversary of the Twitter acquisition So I just wanted to kind of reminisce a little bit And I remember yeah I mean I remember Where that sync Where's that sync? Well, yeah. So Elon was staying at my house. We had talked the week before and he told me the deal was going to close. And so I was like, hey, do you need a place to stay? And he took me up on it. And the day before he went to the Twitter office, there was a request made to my staff. Do you happen to have an extra sync? And they did not. but they were able to, who has an extra sink really, but they were able to locate one at a nearby hardware store. And I think they paid extra to get it out of the window or something. Well, I think the store was confused because my security team was asking for any kind of sink. And like, like normally people wouldn't ask for any kind of sink. You need a sink that puts in your bathroom or connects to a certain kind of plumbing. So they're like trying to ask, He's like, well, what kind of faucets do you want? No, no, I just want a sink. Yeah, I think it's a mental person. The store was confused that we just wanted a sink. Yes. And didn't care what the sink connected to. That was a relief. They were almost not letting us buy the sink because they thought maybe we'd buy the wrong sink. It's just rare that somebody wants a sink for a certain sake. For me and purposes. One of my favorite memories was Elon said, hey, you know, swing by, check it out. I said, OK, I'll come by and I drive up there and I'm looking where to park the car. And I realize there's just parking spaces around the entire building. And I'm like, OK, this can't be like legal parking, but I park and it's legal parking. Yeah, I mean, you're in downtown SF, so you might get your window broken. Yeah, I might not be there when I get back. But we get in there and the place is empty. And then. Yeah, yeah. it it was seriously empty except the cafeteria there was an entire uh there were two the twitter headquarters was two buildings one of the buildings was completely and utterly empty um and the other building uh had like five percent occupancy and in the five percent occupancy we go to the cafeteria we all go get something to eat and we realized there's more people working in the cafeteria than that twitter there were more people making the food than eating the food in this giant cafeteria. This is where we discovered that the actual price of the lunch was Um uh the original price was but it had five it went for it was at 5 occupancy So it was 20 times higher and they still kept making the same amount pretty much. So, and charging the same amount. So effectively lunch was $400. Um, and that was a great meeting. Yes. And then there was that where we had the initial meetings, sort of the sort of trying to figure out what the heck's going on meetings in the – because, you know, there's the two buildings, two Twitter buildings, and the one with literally no one in it. That's where we had the initial meetings. And then we tried drawing on the whiteboard, and the markers had gone dry. So nobody had used the whiteboard markers in like two years. So sad. None of the markers worked. So you're like, this is totally bizarre. But it was totally clean because the cleaning crew had come in and done their job and cleaned an already clean place for two, three years straight. It was spotless. I mean, honestly, this is more crazy than any sort of Mike Judge movie or Silicon Valley or anything like that. And then I remember going into the men's bathroom and there's a table with, you know. Hygiene? Mistral hygiene products. Yeah. Refreshed every week. tampons like a fresh box of tampons um and and we're like but but there's literally no one in this building um so uh but nope hadn't turned off the send send fresh tampons to the van's bathroom in the empty building had not been turned off no so every week they would put a fresh box of tampons in an empty building um for years this happened for years and it must be very confusing to the people that were being asked to do this because they're like okay i'll throw them away i guess they're paying us so we'll just put tampon so seriously have to consider that the string of possibilities necessary in order for anyone to possibly use that tampon in the men's bathroom at the unoccupied second building of Twitter headquarters, because you'd have to be a burglar who is a trans man burglar who's unwilling to use the woman's bathroom that also has tampons. Statistically improbable. There's no one in the building. So you've broken into the building. At that moment, you have a period. Yes, and you're on your period. I mean, you're more likely to be struck by a meteor than need that tampon. Okay. Well, I remember, I think it was shortly after that, you discovered an entire room at the office that was filled with Stay Woke t-shirts. Do you remember this? An entire pile of merch. Yes. hashtag stay woke stay woke and also a big sort of buttons like those magnetic buttons that you put on your shirt that said uh uh i i am an engineer um i'm like look if you're an engineer you don't need a button like a big who's the button for who are you telling that to you just ship code we would know we could check your gift but yeah they're like scarves um hoodies all kinds of merch that said hashtags, they work. Yeah. A couple of music rooms. When you found that, I was like, my God, man, the barbarians are fully within the gates now. I mean... The barbarians have smashed through the gates and are looting the merch. Yes. You are rummaging through their holy relics and defiling them. I mean, but when you think about it, David, the amount of waste that we saw there during those first 30 days, just to be serious about it for a second, this was a publicly traded company. Right. So if you think about the financial duty of those individuals, there was a list of SaaS software we went through and none of it was being used. Some of it had never been installed and they had been paying for it for two years. They've been paying for a SaaS product for two years. And the one that blew my mind the most that we canceled was they were paying a certain amount of money per desk to have desk-sweeting software in an office where nobody came to work. So they were paying to rob nobody. There was millions of dollars a year being paid for, yes, but for analysis of pedestrian traffic like software that used cameras to analyze the pedestrian traffic to figure out where you can alleviate pedestrian traffic jams in an empty building Right. That's like 11 out of 10 on a Dilbert scale. Yeah, it was pretty. Shout out Scott Adams. You've gone off scale on your Dilbert level at that point. Let's talk about the free speech aspect for a second, because I think that is the most important legacy of the Twitter acquisition. And I think people have short memories and they forget how bad things were three years ago. First of all, you had figures as diverse as President Trump, Jordan Peterson, Jay Bhattacharya, Andrew Tate. They were all banned from Twitter. And I remember when you opened up the Twitter jails and reinstated their accounts, kind of freed all the bad boys of free speech. Yeah, stole them the best deal. Yes. So you basically gave all the bad boys of free speech their accounts back. But second, beyond just the bannings, there was the shadow bannings. And Twitter had claimed for years that they were not shadow banning. This was a paranoid conservative conspiracy theorist. Yeah, there was a very aggressive shadow banning by what was called the trust and safety group, which, of course, naturally would be the one that is doing the nefarious shadow banning. And I just I think you shouldn't have a group called trust and safety. I mean, this is an old name if there ever was one. I'm from the trust department. Oh, really? I want to talk to you about your tweets. Can we see your DMs? Say that you're from the trust department? That's the ministry of truth right there. Yeah. Twitter executives had maintained for years that they were not engaged in this practice, including under oath. And on the heels of you opening that up and exposing that, because by the way, it wasn't just the fact they were doing it. They created an elaborate set of tools to do this. They had checkboxes in the app. Elaborate set of tools to, yes, to de-boost accounts. Yes. Yes. And, you know, subsequently we found out that other social networking properties have done this as well, but you were really the first to expose it. This is still being done at the other social media companies. It's Google, by the way. So for you know I don pick on Google because they all doing it But for search results if you simply push a result pretty far down the page or you know the second page of results like like you know the joke used to be or personal is i think like where do you hide what's the best place to hide a dead body the second page of google search results because nobody ever goes to the second page of google search results so you could you could hide a dead body there nobody would find it and and and you Do you still have – then it's not like you haven't made them go away. You've just put them on this one page too. Yes. So shadow banning I think was number two. So first was banning. Second was shadow banning. I think third to me was government collusion, government interference. So you released the Twitter files. Nothing like that had ever been done before where you just – you actually let investigative reporters go through Twitters, emails, chat groups. I was not looking over their shoulder at all. They just had direct access to everything. And they found that there was extensive collusion between the FBI and the Twitter trust and safety group where it turns out the FBI had 80 agents submitting takedown requests. And they were very involved in the banning, the shadow banning, the censorship, which I don't think we ever had definitive evidence of that before. That was pretty extraordinary. Yeah, and the U.S. House of Representatives had hearings on the matter, and a lot of this was unearthed. It's public record. So a lot of people, some people on the left still think this is made up. I'm like, this is just literally, the Twitter files are literally the files at Twitter. I mean, we're literally just talking about these are emails that were sent internally that confirm this. This is what's on the Slack channels. And this is what is shown on the Twitter database as where people have made either suspensions or shadow bans. Has the government come and asked you to take stuff down since or they just have to, the policy is, hey, listen, you got to file a warrant. You got to come correct as opposed to just putting pressure on executives. Yeah, our policy at this point is to follow the law. So if now the laws are obviously different in different countries. So sometimes, you know, I get criticized for like, why don't I push free speech in XYZ country that doesn't have free speech laws? I'm like, because that's not the law there. And if we don't obey the law, we'll simply be blocked in that country. So the policy is really just adhere to the laws in any given country It is not up to us to agree or disagree with those laws And if the people of that country want laws to be different then they should ask their leaders to change the laws. But as soon as you start going beyond the law, now you're putting your thumb on the scale. So I think that's the right policy. is just adhere to the laws within any given country. Now, sometimes we get, you know, in a bit of a bind, like we had gone into with Brazil, where, you know, this judge in Brazil was asking us to, or telling us to break the law in Brazil and ban accounts contrary to the law of Brazil. And now we're somewhat stuck. We're like, wait a second, we're reading the law and it says this is not allowed to happen. And also that and giving us a gag order. So like we're not allowed to say it's happening and we have to break the law. And the judge is telling us to break the law. The law is breaking the law. That's where things get very difficult. And we were actually banned in Brazil for a while because of that. One final point on the free speech issue and then we can move on is just I think people forget that the censorship wasn't just about COVID. there was a growing number of categories of thought and opinion that were being outlawed. The quote content moderation, which is another Orwellian euphemism for censorship, was being applied to categories like gender and even climate change. The definition of hate speech was constantly growing. Yes. And more and more people were being banned or shadow banned. And there was more and more things that you couldn't say. This trend of censorship was growing. It was galloping. and it would have continued if it wasn't, I think, for the fact that you decided to buy Twitter and opened it up. And it was only on the heels of that, that the other social networks were willing to, I think, be a little bit chastened in their policies and start to push back more. Yeah, that's right. Once Twitter broke ranks, the others had to, it became very obvious what the others were doing. And so they had to mitigate their censorship substantially as because of what Twitter did. And I mean, perhaps to give them some credit, they also felt that they had the air cover to be more inclined towards free speech. They still do a lot of sort of shadow banning and whatnot at the other social media companies. But it's much less than it used to be. Yeah. Elon, what have you seen in terms of like governments creating new laws? So we've seen a lot of this crackdown in the UK on what's being called hateful speech on social media and folks getting arrested and actually going to prison over it. And it seems like when there's more freedom, the side that is threatened by that comes out and creates their own counter. There's a reaction to that, and there seems to be a reaction. Are you seeing more of these laws around the world in response to your opening up free speech through Twitter and those changes and what they're enabling that the governments and the parties that control those governments aren't aligned? And they're stepping in and saying, let's create new ways of maintaining our control through law. Yeah, there's been an overall global movement to suppress free speech under the guise of suppressing hate speech. But then, you know, the problem with that is that your freedom of speech only matters if people are allowed to say things that you don't like or even things that you hate. because if you're allowed to suppress speech that you don't like, then you don't have freedom of speech, and it's only a matter of time before things switch around, and then the shoe's on the other foot, and they will suppress you. So suppress not lest you be suppressed. But there is a movement, There was a very strong movement to codify speech suppression into the law throughout the world, including the Western world, Europe and Australia. The UK and Germany were very aggressive in this regard. Yes. And my understanding is that in the UK, there's something like 2,000 or 3,000 people in prison for social media posts. and in fact there's so many people that were imprisoned for social media posts and many of these things are you can't believe that someone would actually be put in prison for this they have in a lot of cases released people who have committed violent crimes in order to imprison people who have simply made posts on social media which is deeply wrong And underscores why the founders of this country made the First Amendment the First Amendment was freedom of speech. Why did they do that? It's because in the places that they came from, there wasn't freedom of speech, and you could be imprisoned or killed for saying things. Can I ask you a question just to maybe move to a different topic? If you came and did this next week we will be past the tesla board vote we talked about it last week and we talked about how crazy iss and glass lewis is right we use this one insane example where like ira aaron prize didn't get the recommendation from iss and glass lewis because he didn't meet the gender requirements but then kathleen also didn't it doesn't make any sense can you so the the board vote is on the six so there's an african-american woman yeah yeah she they recommended against her but then also recommended against our enterprise um on on the grounds he was insufficiently diverse so i'm like this like these things don't make any sense yeah so i do think we've got a fundamental issue with corporate governance um in publicly traded companies where you've got about half of the stock market uh is controlled by past index funds um and most of them out most of them outsource their decision uh to uh advisory firms and particularly glassless and uh iss i call them corporate isis um you know so all they do is basically just they're just terrorists um so um so and they had they own no stock in any of these companies um right so i think that this there's a fundamental breakdown of fiduciary responsibility here where really any company that's managing even though they're passively managing index funds or whatever, they do at the end of the day have a fiduciary duty to vote along the lines of what would maximize the shareholder returns because people are counting on them. People have all their savings and say a 401k or something like that And they counting on the index funds to vote do company votes in the direction that would ensure that their retirement savings do as well as possible But the problem is if that is then outsourced to ISS and Glass which have been infiltrated by far activists because you know where basically political activists go, they go where the power is. And so effectively, Glass-Lewis and ISS controlled the vote of half the stock market. Now, if you're a political activist, you know what a great place would be to go work? Fire cells and glass doors. And they do. So my concern for the future, because the Tesla thing, it's called sort of compensation, but really it's not about compensation. It's not like I'm going to go out and buy a yacht with it or something. it's just that I do if I'm going to build up Optimus and have all these robots out there I need to make sure we do not have a terminated scenario and that I can maximize the safety of the robots and but I feel like I need to have something like a 25% vote which is enough of a vote to have a strong influence but not so much of a vote that I can't be fired if i go insane um so it's it's kind of but but my concern would be you know creating this army of robots and then and then being fired for political reasons um because of because of iss and glass lewis uh you know declined to isis and glass lewis fire me effectively or or the the activists at those firms fire me um even though i've done everything right yeah that's my concern yeah and then i and then then then you've got and then i and then i cannot ensure this the safety of the robots if you don't get that vote it doesn't go your way it looks like it's going to would you leave i mean is that even in the cards i heard they were the board was very concerned about that uh let's just say i'm not going to build a robot army um if i if i can be easily kicked out by activists, investors. Yeah. No way. Yeah. Makes sense. Yeah. And who is capable of running the four or five major product lines at Tesla? I mean, this is the madness of it. It's a very complex business. People don't understand what's under the hood there. It not just a car company You got batteries you got trucks you got the self group and this is a very complex business that you built over decades now It not a very simple thing to run I don't think there's an Elon equivalent out there who can just jump into the cockpit. By the way, if we take a full turn around corporate governance corner, also this week, what was interesting about the open AI restructuring was I read the letter. and your lawsuit was excluded from the allowances of the California attorney general basically saying this thing can go through, which means that your lawsuit is still out there, right? And I think it's going to go to a jury trial. So there, that corporate governance thing is still very much in question. Do you have any thoughts on that? Yes, I believe that will go to a jury trial in February or March, and then we'll see what the results are there. But there's like a mountain of evidence that shows that OpenAI was created as an open source nonprofit. It's literally, that's the exact description in the incorporation documents. And in fact, the incorporation documents explicitly say that no officer or founding member will benefit financially from OpenAI. And they've completely violated that. And more of a, you can just use the Wayback Machine and look at the website of OpenAI. Again, open source, non-profit, open source, non-profit, the whole way. Until, you know, it looked like, wow, there's a lot of money to be gained here. And then suddenly it starts changing. And they try to change the definition of OpenAI to mean open to everyone instead of open source. Even though it always meant open source. I came up with the name. Yeah. That's how I know. So if they open sourced it or they gave you, I mean, you don't need the money, but if they gave you the percentage ownership in it that you would be rightfully, which 50 million for a startup would be half at least. But they must have made an overture towards you and said, hey, can we just give you 10% of this thing and give us your blessing? You obviously have a different goal here, yeah? Yeah. Yeah, I mean essentially since I came up with the idea for the company, named it, provided the A, B and C rounds of funding, recruited the critical personnel, I told them everything I know. a commercial corporation, I'd probably own half the company. So, but, and I could have chosen to do that. If I, it was totally at my discretion, I could have done that. But I created it as a nonprofit for the world, an open source nonprofit for the world. Do you think the right thing to do is to take those models and just open source them today? If you could affect that change, is that the right thing to do? Yeah, I think, I think that, that, that is what the, what it was created to do. So it should, I mean, the, the best open source models right now, actually, ironically, because fate seems to be an irony maximizer. The best open source models are generally from China. Yeah. Like that's bizarre. And, and, and then I think the second best one is, or maybe it's better than second best, but like the, the Grok 2.5 open source model is actually very, very good. And I think we'd probably be, and we'll continue to open source our models, but whereas like try using any of the recent so-called the OpenAI open source models, they don't work. They basically, they open sourced a broken non-working version of their models as a fig leaf. I mean, do you know anyone who's running OpenAI's open source models? exactly yeah nobody we've had a big debate about jobs here obviously there's going to be job displacement you and i have talked about it for decades uh what's your take on the pace of it because obviously you're building self-driving software you're building optimus yeah we're seeing amazon take some steps here where they're like yeah we're probably not going to hire these positions in the future and you know maybe they're getting rid of people now because they were bloated but maybe some of it's AI, you know, it's all debatable. What do you think the timeline is? And what do you think as a society we're going to need to do to mitigate it if it goes too fast? Well, you know, I call AI the supersonic tsunami. So, it's not the most comforting description in the world. But if there was a tsunami, a giant wall of water moving faster than the speed of sound That AI When does it land Yeah exactly So now this is happening whether I wanted to or not I actually try to slow down AI. And then the reason I wanted to create OpenAI was to serve as a counterweight to Google because at the time Google was sort of essentially had unilateral power in AI, all the AI, essentially. Um, and, um, and, uh, you know, Larry Page was not, um, you know, he, he, he, he was not taking ice safety seriously. Um, uh, I don't know, Jason, I'm sure were you, were you there when he, he called me a speciest? Yes. I was there. Yeah. Okay. So. You were more concerned about the human race than you were about the machines. And, uh, yeah, you had a clear bias for humanity. Yeah. Yes, yes, exactly. I was like, Larry, we need to make sure that the AI doesn't destroy all the humans. And then he called me a speciest, like racist or something for being pro-human intelligence instead of machine intelligence. I'm like, well, Larry, what side are you on? I mean, you know, that's kind of a concern. And then at the time, Google had essentially a monopoly on AI. Yeah, they bought DeepMind, which you were on the board of, had an investment in. Larry and Sergey had invested in it as well. And it's really interesting. I found out about it because I told him about it. I showed him some stuff from DeepMind. And I think that's how he found out about it and acquired them, actually. I got to be careful what I say. But the point is that it's like, look, Larry's not taking AI safety seriously. and Google had essentially all the AI and all the computers and all the money. And I'm like, this is a unipolar world where the guy in charge is not taking things seriously and called me a speciest for being pro-human. What do you do in those circumstances? Build a competitor. Yes. So OpenAI was created essentially as the opposite, which is an open source nonprofit, the opposite of Google. Now, unfortunately, it needs to change its name to closed for maximum profit AI. Yeah. For maximum profit, to be clear. Maximum profit. The most amount of profit you could possibly get I mean It is so it is like like I said it comical And when you hear when you hear Sam there an irony maximizing You have to say like what is the most the most ironic outcome for a company that, that was created for, to do open source, not at nonprofit AI, is it's super close source. It's tied in Fort Knox. The AI, open AI source is locked up, tied in Fort Knox. And, And they are going for maximum profit. Like get the bourbon, the steak knife, you know. Yeah, I mean. You know, like they're going for the buffet. And they're just diving headfirst into the profit buffet. I mean, it's the revenue buffet, at least. Profits will see. I mean, it's like. It's like ravenous wolves for revenue. revenue buffet no no it's literally like super it's like bond villain level flip like it went from being the united nations to being specter in like james bondland yeah when you hear him say i'm gonna when sam says it's gonna like raise 1.4 trillion to build our data centers yeah no but i think he i think he means it yeah i mean it's i would say audacious but i i wouldn't want to yeah insult the word it's actually i have a question about this how is that possible in the earnings call you said something that was insane and then i think the math actually nets up but you said we could connect all the teslas and allow them in downtime to actually offer up inference and you can string them all together i think the math is like it could actually be like 100 gigawatts is that right did you do if ultimately there's a tesla fleet uh that is um a hundred million vehicles uh which i think we probably will get to at some point a hundred million vehicle fleet um and uh they have you know mostly state-of-the-art uh inference computers in them uh that that each say are a kilowatt of inference computer um and they have built-in um power and cooling and connect to the wifi. That's the key. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, exactly. And, and, and, and you'd have a hundred gigawatts of inference compute. Elon, do you think that the architecture, like there was an attention free model that came out the last week, there's been all of these papers, all of these new models that have been shown to reduce power per token of output by many many many orders of magnitude like not just an order of magnitude but like maybe three or four Like what your view and all the work you been doing on where we headed in terms of power per unit of compute or per token of output? Well, we have a clear example of efficient, power efficient compute, which is the human brain. so our brains use about 20 watts of power but and all that only about 10 watts is higher brain function most of it's you know half of it is just housekeeping functions you know keeping your heart going and breathing and that kind of thing so so you've got maybe 10 watts of higher brain function in a human and we've managed to build civilization with 10 watts of a biological computer and that biological computer has like a 20-year, you know, boot sequence. So it's pretty fun. But it's very power efficient. So given that humans are capable of inventing, you know, general relativity and quantum mechanics or discovering general relativity, like inventing aircraft, lasers, the internet, and discovering physics with a 10-watt meat computer, essentially, then there's clearly a massive opportunity for improving the efficiency of AI compute. It's because it's currently many orders of magnitude away from that. And it's still the case that a 100-megawatt or even a gigawatt AI supercomputer at this point can't do everything that a human can do. It will be able to, but it can't yet. So like I said, we've got this obvious case of human brains being very power efficient and achieving and building civilization with 10 watts to compute. and our bandwidth is very low. So the speed at which we communicate information to each other is extremely low. You know, we're not communicating at a terabit. We're communicating more at like 10 bits per second. So, Do you think that there's a- that there's massive opportunity for being more power efficient with AI. And at Tesla and at XAI, we continue to see massive improvements in inference computer efficiency. So, yeah. You think that there's a moment where you would justify stopping all the traditional cars and just going completely all in on CyberCab if you felt like the learning was good enough and the system was safe enough? Is there ever a moment like that? Or do you think you'll always kind of dual track and always do both? I mean, all of the cars we make right now are capable of being a robo-taxi. So there's a little confusion of the terminology because our cars look normal, you know, like Model 3 or Model Y. It's a good looking car, but it looks normal. But it has an advanced AI computer and advanced AI software and cameras and we didn't want the cameras to stick out so we you know so that we wouldn't want them to be ugly or stick out so so we you know we put them they're sort of an unobtrusive locations you know the forward-looking camera cameras are in front of the rear view mirror um the side view mirrors are in the side repeaters oh this is the side view cameras on the side repeaters uh the rear camera is you know just in the you know above the license plate actually typically where the rear view camera is in a car. And the diagonal forward ones are in the B-pillars. Like if you look closely, you can see all the cameras, but you have to look closely. We just didn't want them to stick out like warts or something. But actually all the cars we make are hyper-intelligent and have the cameras in the right places. They just look normal. And so all of the cars we make are capable of unsupervised full autonomy. Now, we have a dedicated product, which is the CyberCab, which has no steering wheel or pedals, which are obviously prestigial in an autonomous world. And we start production of the CyberCab in Q2 next year. And we'll scale that up to quite high volume. I think ultimately we'll make millions of CyberCabs per year. But it is important to emphasize that all of our cars are capable of being robotic taxis. The CyberCab is gorgeous I told you I buy two of those if you put a steering wheel in them And there is a big movement You not putting a steering wheel in them People are begging for it Why not Why not let us buy a couple you know just the first ones off the line and drive them I mean, they look great. It's like the perfect model. You always had a vision for a Model 2, right? Isn't it like the perfect Model 2 in addition to being a CyberCab? Look, the reality is people may think they want to drive their car, but the reality is that they don't. how many times have you been, say, in an Uber or Lyft, and you said, you know what, I wish I could take over from the driver. And I wish I could get off my phone and take over from the Uber driver and drive to my destination. How many times have you thought that to yourself? No, it's quite the opposite. Zero times, okay. I have the Model Y, and I just got 14. I have Juniper, and I got the 14.1, and I put it on Mad Max mode the last couple of days. that is a unique experience. I was like, wait a second. This thing is driving in a very unique fashion. Yeah. Yeah. It assumes you want to get to your destination in a hurry. Yeah. I used to give cam drivers an extra 20 bucks to do that. Medical appointment or something. I don't know. Yeah. But it feels like it's getting very close, but you have to be very careful. You know, Uber had a horrible accident with the safety driver. Cruise had a terrible accident. It wasn't their fault exactly, except, you know, somebody got hit and then they hit the person a second time and they got dragged. Yeah, yeah. You know, there's pretty high stakes. So you're being extremely cautious. The car is actually extremely capable right now. Yeah. But we are being extremely cautious and we're being paranoid about it because to your point, even one accident would be headline news. Well, probably worldwide headline news. Especially if it's a Tesla. Like Waymo, I think, gets a bit of a pass. I think there's half the country or a number of people probably would, you know, go extra hard on you. Yes. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. Not everyone in the press is my friend. I hadn't noticed. Yeah, some of them are a little antagonistic. Yeah. But people are pressuring you to go fast. And I think everybody's got to just take their time with this thing. It's obviously going to happen. But I just get very nervous that the pressure to put these things on the road faster than they ready is just a little crazy So I applaud you for putting the safety monitor in doing the safety driver. No shame in the safety driver game. It's so much the right decision, obviously, but people are criticizing you for it. I think it's dumb. It's the right thing to do. Yes. And we do expect it to take, to not have any sort of safety occupant or, or there's not really a driver that just sits monitor safety safety monitor just sits you just sit they just sit in the car and don't do anything safety dude yeah um so uh but we do expect that that the cars will be driving around without any any safety monitor um before the end of the year so sometime in December in Austin yeah I mean you got a number of reps under your belt in Austin and it feels like pretty well, you guys have done a great job figuring out where the trouble spots are. Maybe you could talk a little bit about what you learned in the first, I don't know, it's been like three or four months of this so far. What did you learn in the first three or four months of the Austin experiment? It's gone pretty smoothly. A lot of things that we're learning are just how to manage a fleet. Because you've got to write all the fleet management software, right? So, and you've got to write the ride hailing software. You've got to write, basically the software that Uber has, you've got to write that software. It's just summoning a robot car instead of a car with a driver. So, a lot of the things we're doing, we're scaling up the number of cars to say, what happens if you have a thousand cars? Like, so, we think probably we'll have a thousand cars or more in the Bay Area by the end of this year. Probably, I don't know, 500 or more in the greater world. Austin area. And, you know, if you have to make sure the cars don't all, for example, go to the same supercharger. Right. So, or don't all go to the same intersection. It's like, what do these cars do? And then, like, sometimes there's high demand and sometimes there's low demand. What do you do during those times? Do you have a car circled the block? Do you have to try to find a parking space? And then you know sometimes like I say it a disabled parking space or something but the writing faded or the thing faded The car like oh look a parking space will jump right in there Yeah get a ticket You got to look carefully, make sure it's not an illegal parking space. Or it sees a space to park and it's like ridiculously tight. But it's like, I can get in there. With like, you know, three inches on either side. bad computer but nobody else will be able to get in the car if you do that so there's just like all these oddball corner cases and and regulators like regulators are all very yeah they have different levels of perspicuousness and regulations depending on the city depending on the airport it's just very different everywhere. That's going to just be a lot of blocking and tackling, and it just takes time. In order to take people to San Jose Airport, you actually have to connect to San Jose Airport servers because you have to pay a fee every time you turn off. So the car actually has to do a remote call. The robot car has to do a remote procedure call to San Jose the airport servers to say I'm dropping someone off at the airport and charge me whatever, five bucks. There are all these quirky things like that. Airports are somewhat of a racket. Yeah. We have to solve that thing. But it's kind of funny that the robot car is calling the airport server to charge its credit card or whatever. Drop someone off. It's like a send of facts. Yeah, we're going to be dropping off at this time. But it will seem to become extremely normal to see cars going around with no one in them. Yeah. Extremely normal. Just before we lose you, I want to ask if you saw the Bill Gates memo that he put out. A lot of people are talking about this memo. Like, you know... I just want to say, Billy G is not my lover. Oh, man. like did did did climate change become woke did it become like woke and is it over like you know like what happened and what's what What happened with Billy G? I mean, you know. Great question. Great question. Yeah. You know, you think that someone like Paul Gates, who clearly started a technology company, that's one of the biggest companies in the world, Microsoft, you'd think he'd be really quite strong in the sciences. but actually my at least direct conversations with him have he is not strong in the sciences like the kid yeah this is really surprising you know like he came to visit me at the Tesla Gigafactory in Austin and was telling me that it's impossible to have a long-range semi-truck and I was like well but we literally have them and you can drive them and Pepsi is literally using them right now and you can drive them yourself or send someone obviously Bob Gates is not going to drive them himself but you can send a trusted person to drive the truck and verify that it can do the things that we say it's doing and he's like no it doesn't work and I'm like okay I'm kind of stuck there then it's like i was like well so it must be that um you disagree with the watt hours per kilogram of the battery pack so that you must think that perhaps we can't achieve the energy density of the battery pack or that the watt hours per mile of the truck is too high and that when you combine those two numbers the range is low and so which one of those numbers do you think we have wrong and what numbers do you think are correct and you didn't know any of the numbers. And I'm like, well, then doesn't it seem that it's perhaps, you know, premature to conclude that a long range semi cannot work if you do not know the energy density of the battery pack or the energy efficiency of the truck chassis. But yeah, he's now taking a 180 on climate. he's saying maybe this should be the top priority. Climate is gay. Why would he say climate is gay? That's wrong. It's totally retarded. Why would you say climate is gay and retarded Come on Maybe he got some data centers he got to put up Does he have to stand up a data center for Sam Maltman or something I don know What is Azure? I don't know. He changed his position. I can't figure out why. I mean, the reality of the whole climate change thing is that you've just had sort of people who say it doesn't exist at all and then people who say it's our super lamest and saying you know rara is going to be underwater in five years and obviously neither of those two positions are true um but you know the reality is you can measure the the carbon concentration in the atmosphere again you could just literally buy a co2 uh monitor from amazon it's like 50 bucks and um You can measure it yourself. And you can say, okay, well, look, the parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere has been increasing steadily at two to three per year. At some point, if you continue to take billions, eventually trillions of tons of carbon from deep underground and transfer it to the atmosphere and oceans, so you transfer it from deep underground into the surface cycle, you will change the chemical constituency of the atmosphere and oceans. You just literally will. Then you can only argue to what degree and over what time scale. And the reality is that, in my opinion, is that we've got at least 50 years before it's a serious issue. I don't think we've got 500 years, but we've probably got 50. It's not five years. so if you're trying to get to the right order of magnitude of accuracy I'd say the concern level for climate change is on the order of 50 years it's definitely not 5 and I think it probably isn't 500 so really the right course of action is actually just the reasonable course of action which is to lean in the direction of sustainable energy and lean in the direction of solar and sort of a solar battery future and generally have the rules of the system lean in that direction. I don't think we need massive subsidies, but then we also shouldn't have massive subsidies for the oil and gas industry. Okay So the oil and gas industry has massive tax write that they don even think of as subsidies Because these things have been in place for in some cases 80 years But they're not there for other industries. So when you've got special tax conditions that are in one industry and not in another industry, I call that a subsidy. Obviously, it is. But they've taken it for granted for so long in oil and gas that they don't think of it as a subsidy. So the right course of action, of course, is to remove, in my opinion, to remove subsidies from oil industries. But the political reality is that the oil and gas industry is very strong in the Republican Party, but not in the Democratic Party. So you will not see, obviously, even the tiniest subsidy being removed from the oil, gas and coal industry. In fact, there were some that were added to the oil, gas and coal industry in the sort of big bill. and there were a massive number of sustainable energy incentives that were removed, some of which I agreed with, by the way. Some of the incentives have gone too far. But anyway, the actual, I think, the correct scientific conclusion, in my opinion, and I think we can back this up with solid reasoning. Let me ask Grock, for example. is that we should lean in the direction of moving towards a sustainable energy future. We will eventually run out of oil, gas and coal to burn anyway, because there's a finite amount of that stuff. And we will eventually have to go to something that lasts a long time that is sustainable. But to your point about the irony of things, it seems to be the case that making energy with solar is cheaper than making energy with some of these carbon-based sources today and so the irony is it's already working i mean the market is moving in that direction and this notion that we need to kind of force everyone into a model of behavior it's just naturally going to change because we've got better systems you know you and others have engineered better systems that make these alternatives cheaper and therefore they're They're winning, like they're actually winning in the market, which is great. But they can't win if there are subsidies to support the old systems, obviously. Yeah I mean by the way there are actually massive disincentives for solar because China is a massive producer of solar panels China does an incredible job of solar manufacturing of solar panel manufacturing Really incredible They have roughly one and a half terawatts of solar production right now And they're only using a terawatt per year. By the way, that's a gigantic number. The average U.S. power consumption is only half a terawatt. So just think about that for a second. China's solar panel production max capacity is 1.5 terawatts per year. U.S. steady-state power usage is half a terawatt. Now, you do have to reduce, to produce 1.5 terawatts a year of solar, you need to add that with batteries, taking into account the differences between night and day, the fact that the solar panel is not always pointed directly at the sun, that kind of thing. So you can divide by five-ish to say that, but that still means that China has the ability to produce solar panels that have a steady state output that is roughly two-thirds that of the entire use economy from all sources, which means that just with solar alone, China can in 18 months produce enough solar panels to power the entire United States, all the electricity of the United States. What do you think about near field solar, aka nuclear? I'm in favor of, look, make energy from any way you want. That doesn't obviously harmful to the environment. Generally, people don't welcome a nuclear reactor in their backyard. They're not like championing. Put it here. Put it under my bed. Put it on my roof. If you're an extra neighbor said, hey, I'm selling my house and they're putting a reactor there. What would you do? You know, the typical homeowner response would be negative. Very few people embrace a nuclear reactor adjacent to their house. So but nonetheless, I do think nuclear is actually very safe. there's a lot of scaremongering and propaganda around fission, assuming you're talking about fission but fission is actually very safe, they obviously have this on the Navy, US Navy has this on submarines and aircraft carriers with people really working right, I mean submarines are pretty crowded place and they have a nuclear powered submarine. So, um, so, so I think, I think fission is fine as, as a, as a, as an option. Um, the, the regulatory environment is, makes it very difficult to actually get that done. Um, and then it is important to appreciate just the sheer magnitude of the power of the sun. So this is, here's some just important basic facts. Um, even Wikipedia has these facts, right? you know so you don't even have to you don't have to use rockpedia but even wikipedia has yeah even wikipedia got it right yes yes i'm saying what i'm saying even wikipedia's got these facts right the sun is about 99.8 percent of the mass of the solar system then jupiter is about 0.1 percent and everything else is in the remaining 0.1 percent and we are much less than 0.1 percent so if you burnt all of the mass of the solar system okay then the total energy produced by the sun would still round up to 100% if you just burnt earth the whole planet and burnt Jupiter which is very big and quite challenging to burn you know Jupiter into thermonuclear active, it wouldn't matter. The sun, compared to the sun, the sun is 99.8% of the mass of the solar system and everything else is in the miscellaneous category. So, like basically, no matter what you do, total energy produced in our solar system rounds up to 100% from the sun. You could even throw another Jupiter in there. So we're going to snag a Jupiter from somewhere else. and somehow teleport, you could teleport two more Jupiters into our solar system, burn them, and the sun would still round up to 100%. As long as you're at 99.6%, you're still rounding up to 100%. Maybe that gives some perspective of why solar is really the thing that matters. And as soon as you start thinking about things at sort of a grander scale, like Kardashev scale to civilizations, it becomes very very obvious I not saying anything that new by the way anyone who studies physics has known this for a very long time In fact Kodeshev I think was a Russian physicist who came up with this idea I think in the 60s just as a way to classify civilizations. Where Kodeshev scale one would be you've used, you've honest most of the energy of the planet. Kodosh of scale two, you've Harness most of the energy of your sun Kodosh of three, you've harness most of the energy Of galaxy Now we're only about I don't know, one percent Or a few percent of Kodosh of scale One right now Optimistically So But as soon as you go to Kodosh of scale two Where you're talking about the power of the sun Then you're really just saying Everything is solar power and and and and the rest is in the noise um and um yeah so like the you know like the sun produces about a billion times or call it well over a billion times more energy than everything on earth combined. It's crazy. It's mind-blowing. Right. Yeah. Yeah, solar is the obvious solution to all this. And yeah, I mean, short term, we have to use some of these other sources. But hey, there it is, an hour and a half. Think of it like star-powered. Like maybe we've got a branding issue here. Yeah, star-powered. Instead of solar-powered, it's starlight. Yeah, starlight. Perfect. It's the power of a blazing sun. How much energy does an entire star have? Yeah. More than enough. More than enough. All right. And also, you really need to keep the power local. So sometimes people, honestly, I've had these discussions so many times. It's where they say, well, would you beam the power back to Earth? I'm like, do you want to melt Earth? Because you would melt Earth if you did that. We'd be vaporized in an instant. So you really need to keep the power local, you know, basically distributed power. And I guess most of it we use for intelligence So it like the future is like a whole bunch of solar powered AI satellites AI satellites Elon the only thing that makes the star work is it just happens to have a lot of mass so it has that gravity to ignite the fusion reaction right But like we could ignite the fusion reaction on Earth now. I don't know if your view has changed. I think we talked about this a couple of years ago where you were pretty like, we don't know if or when fusion becomes real here. But theoretically, we could take like 10. No, I want to be careful. My opinion on, so, yeah, I started physics in college. At one point in high school, I was thinking about a career in physics. One of my sons actually does a career in physics. But the problem is I came to the conclusion that I'd be waiting for a collider or a telescope. I don't have any, and I need to get that collider to a career in physics, but I have a strong interest in the subject. So my opinion on, say, creating a fusion reactor on Earth is I think this is actually not a hard problem. Actually, I mean, it's a little hard. I mean, it's not like totally trivial. But if you just scale up a tokamak, the bigger you make it, the easier the problem gets. So you've got a surface volume ratio thing where, you know, you're trying to maintain a really hot core while having a wall that doesn't melt. So that's a similar problem with rocket engines. You've got a super hot core in the rocket engine, but you don't want the chamber walls of the rocket engine to melt. So you have a temperature gradient where it's very hot in the middle and it gradually gets cold enough as you get to the perimeter, as you get to the chamber walls in the rocket engine where it doesn't melt because you've lowered the temperature and you've got a temperature gradient. So if you just scale up the donut reactor, Tokamak, and improve your surface volume ratio, it becomes much easier. And you can absolutely, in my opinion, I think just anyone who looks at the math, you can make a reactor that generates more energy than it consumes. And the bigger you make it, the easier it is. And in the limit, you just have a giant gravitationally contained thermonuclear reactor like the sun. So which requires no maintenance and it free So this is also why why would we bother doing that on making a little itty bitty sun that so microscopic you barely notice um on earth when we got the giant free one in the sky yeah but we but we only get a fraction of one percent of that energy on the planet earth we have to go much less yeah right so we've got to figure out how to wrap the sun if we're going to harness that energy. That's our long term. If people want to have fun with reactors, you know, that's fine. Have fun with reactors. But it's not a serious endeavor compared to the sun. You know, it's sort of a fun science project to make a nuclear reactor, but it's just peanuts compared to the sun. And even the solar energy it does reach Earth is a gigawatt per square kilometer or roughly, you know, call it two and a half gigawatts per square mile. So that's a lot, you know, and the commercially available panels are around 25, almost 26% efficiency. And maybe, you know, but you can, and then you say, like, if you pack it densely, you get an 80% packing density, which I think in a lot of places you could get an 80% packing density, you effectively have about 200 megawatts per square kilometer. And you need to pair that with batteries so you have continuous power. Although our power usage drops considerably at night, so you need less batteries than you think. um and uh and uh and doesn't the doesn't the question a rough way to like a very maybe an easy number to remember is is a gigabit hour per square kilometer per day is a roughly correct number but then doesn't your technical challenge become the scalability of manufacturing of those systems so you know accessing the raw materials and getting them out of the ground of planet earth to make them to make enough of them to get to that sort of scale on that volume that you're talking about? And as you kind of think about what it would take to get to that scale, like, do we have an ability to do that with what we have today? Like, can we pull that much material out of the ground? Yes. Solar panels are made of silicon, which is sand, essentially. And... I guess more on the battery side, but... Oh, the battery side. Yeah. So, the battery side, you know, the... like iron phosphate lithium-ion factory cells that's you know earth and i'd like to throw out some like interesting factoids here um if most people don't know uh if you said um as measured by mass what is the biggest element what what is what is earth made of as measured by mass uh actually it's iron iron yeah iron yeah we're i think 32 iron 30 oxygen and then everything else is in the remaining percentage. So we're basically a rusty ball bearing. That's Earth. And with a lot of silicon at the surface in the form of sand. And the iron phosphate, so iron phosphate lithium-ion cells, iron, extremely common, most common element on Earth, even in the crust. And then phosphorus is also very common. and then the anode is carbon, but also very common. And then lithium is also very common. So there's actually, you can do the math. In fact, we did the math and published the math, but nobody looked at it. It's on the Tesla website that shows that you can completely power Earth with solar panels and batteries, and there's no shortage of anything. All right. So on that note, go get to work, Elon, and just power the earth while you're getting implants into people's brains and satellites and other good fun stuff. Good to see you, buddy. Yeah, good to see you guys. Yeah. Stop by anytime. Thanks for doing this. You got the Zoom link. Stop by anytime. Thank you for coming today, and thank you for liberating free speech three years ago. You're welcome. Yeah That was a very important milestone And I see all you guys are in just different places I guess this is a very virtual situation Always been that I at the ranch Are you ever in the same room? We try not to be. Only when we do that summit, but otherwise we avoid each other. Your summit is pretty fun. We had a great time recounting SNL sketches that didn't make it. So many good ones. I mean, we didn't even get to the Jeopardy ones. Yeah, yeah. Those were so offensive. Oh, wait. Well, I think we skipped a few that would have dramatically increased our probability of being killed. We can take this one out. Boys, I love you. I love you. I love you all. I'm going to poker. Later. Take care. Later. Bye-bye. Love you. Take care. We'll let your winners ride. Rain Man David Saad. I'm going all in And instead, we open-source it to the fans, and they've just gone crazy with it Love you, Wesley I'm the queen of kinwa I'm going all in What, what, what, your winner's line What, what, your winner's line What, your winner's line Besties are gone That is my dog taking a notice in your driveway Sex Winning a bitch Oh, man My habbitasher will meet me at Blaine's We should all just get a room and just have one big Hugh Georgie Because they're all just useless It's like this sexual tension, but they just need to release it out. Wet your feet. Wet your feet. We need to get merch. I'm going all in. I'm going all in.