. . . . . . Please welcome Andrew Rothsorkin and his guest, CEO of Tesla, CEO of SpaceX, Chief Engineer and CTO of X, Elon Musk. Good evening, everybody. Thank you so much for being with us throughout the day. And I couldn't be more pleased to sit with Elon Musk as our final interview of this remarkable time we've all had together.
He doesn't need much of an introduction, but I want to say a couple of things. He's the richest person in the world. He very well be the most consequential individual in the world right now. He runs the most innovative companies in the world, Tesla, SpaceX, Starlink, which is part of that, Neuralink, the boring company, X and his X.ai. And he's disrupted each of these lanes. He's moved to breakneck speeds, but he's faced this form of controversy in the process. He joins us today following a visit, as you all know so well, and we discussed earlier on Monday to Israel, where he met with the Prime Minister there and the President of Israel. And we're going to talk about everything. And my hope is that we can talk about how he thinks about his influence, about his power, about all of it. And we're going to talk about innovation and everything else.
I want to say just two other things real quick. We met each other for the first time 16 years ago. Yes, like that. It's been a long time. And all those kids were three. When we first met, I think you were just about to deliver your first Roadster. I don't think you had yet. Larry Page was still waiting to get like 2007, 2008. And I remember going back to the newsroom and saying, I think I just met the next Steve Jobs. And I'm going to hold to that. I'm going to hold to that. But a lot has happened between when I first met you and now, you came to deal with. It's been boring, that's for sure. I'm actually taking a guy I drove at a boring company.
我只想说两个其他的事情。我们第一次见面是在16年前。是的,就是那样。时间过得很快。当我们第一次见面时,我记得你刚要交付你的第一辆Roadster。我想那时你还没交付。Larry Page还在等到2007年或2008年。我记得回到新闻编辑室时,我说我可能刚遇到了下一个 Steve Jobs。我会一直坚持这个看法。但在我第一次见到你和现在之间发生了很多事情,你经历了很多。那段时间过得挺无聊的,确实如此。我还去过你在一家无聊公司工作的地方。
2012, you came to deal with book and sat on this stage and we're thrilled to have you back. But there's been so much that's happened between now and then, and there's been so much that's happened in the past week, week and a half. And a lot of folks, and I want to tell you this, a lot of folks called me up and said, you're really going to host Elon Musk here. Can you believe what he just said on Twitter? On X. On X. Yeah, yeah. No idea what this Twitter is saying since you're talking about. Should you platform him? That's what they said. Yeah. Should you platform? And then I said that I think that it's our role and I know you have issues with journalists. I have a platform. I know you have issues with journalists oftentimes, but I said it's our role to have conversations and to inquire and to, and sometimes even to interrogate ideas. And that's, I'm hoping we can do that.
So I want to start just so we can begin this conversation and just level set. Take us through everything that happened if you could. Everything. No, over the past week and a half. How long have you got? We've got the time. Okay. You send out a post or X or a tweet. Yeah, post whatever. Yeah. As.
所以我想开始,这样我们就可以开始这次对话并达成共识。如果你能的话,请向我们描述发生的一切。每件事情都包括进去。不,只包括过去的一周半的事情。你有多长时间?我们有时间。好的。你发布了一个帖子或者 X 或者一条推文。是的,任何一种发布方式都可以。
I'm trying to say like when things were just 140 characters that made sense of calling a tweet because it's like a little bit of chirping. But when you know, the point of which you put like three hour videos on it's like it's very long tweet. So here we are. This is more descriptive I think. And at some point I don't know where you were. But you write in responding to another tweet. Yeah. This is the actual truth. And it set off a firestorm of criticism all the way to the White House. Right. And then you make this trip to Israel. We have advertisers who've left the platform. People calling it. Well, the trip to Israel is independent of, it wasn't some like apology tour. I want to be clear. That was. Let's talk about that. But just take us back to the moment at which you write that. The trip to Israel is an independent of it. Okay. It wasn't like in response to that at all. Well, let's do it. We'll do Israel is a small.
And I have no problem being hated by the way. I hear it away. Well, but you know what? Let's go straight to that then for a second.
Sure. Because there is an idea and you could say that. I think it's a real weakness to want to be liked. A real weakness. I do not have that.
Let me ask you this then. There's a difference between saying I don't care if anyone likes me or they hate me. But given your power and given what you have amassed and the importance you have. I would think you want to be trusted.
I would think maybe you don't need to be liked or hated. But trusted matters. If X is going to become a financial platform where people are going to put their money, where the government is going to give you money for rockets, where people are going to get into the cars, they need to ultimately decide that you are, they don't have to say that they love you. But that you are ultimately a decent and good human being.
Yes, I think I am. But I'm certainly not going to do some sort of tap dance to prove to people that I am.
So as for trust, I think we break that down in a few ways. If you want satellites sent to orbit reliably, SpaceX will do 80% of all master orbit this year. China will do 12% the rest of the world will do 8. That includes Boeing, Lockheed and everyone else. So the track record of the rocket is the best by far of anything.
You could hate my guts next. You could not trust me. It is relevant. The rocket track record speaks for itself.
With respect to Tesla, we make the best cars. Whether you hate me like me or indifference, do you want the best car or do you not want the best car? So I will certainly not pander.
And Jonathan, the only reason I'm here is because you are a friend. Like what was my speaking fee? You're not making any, first of all, I'm Andrew. Sorry. It's okay. Second of all, we've known for a very long time. I'm just talking.
Yes. And listen. You know. When I'm trying to illustrate it, sometimes I say the wrong thing. I think there are a lot of people who are tired. But let me go back.
No. You should hear the sketches that SNL wouldn't post, by the way. Those are really good. And I would say unfortunately or unfortunately whatever friendship we have, not great, we don't talk to you that much.
But let me ask you this. True. That's true. Where am I? That doesn't return to all of the calls. Yeah. I'm here because you're a friend. Not because I'm being paid well because I need any validation or anything.
I'm just, you know, I'm just, you know, I'm just, you know, I'm just, you know, I'm just, you know, I'm just, you know, I'm just, you know, I'm just, you know, I'm just, you know, I'm just, you know, I'm just, you know, I'm just, you know, I'm just, you know, I'm just, you know, I'm just, you know, I'm just, you know, I'm just, you know, I'm just, you know, I'm just, you know, I'm just, you know, I'm just, you know, I'm just, you know, I'm just, you know, I'm just, you know, I'm just, you know, I'm just, you know, I'm just, you know, I'm just, you know, I'm just, you know, I'm just, you know, I'm just, you know, I'm just, you know, I'm just, you know, I'm just, you know, I'm just, you know, I'm just, you know, I'm just, you know, well, I'm processes likeUnited States, precisely like, you're book.
What I like about somethingãoá? So that the way people live summernel, right? How would people live in, in America where they're even in small temper'ts? What there are people live in places like that. There's someone working in Amazon today calling you. that view.
It was actually people who really are anti-Semites, who said, oh my goodness, go, go, Elon, this is fabulous. And that actually was the thing that really set me back. I said to myself, what's going on here? And I want to know how you felt about that in that moment when you saw all of this happening.
Yeah, first of all, I did clarify almost immediately what I meant. I would say that that was, you know, if I could go back and say, I should, in retrospect, not have replied to that particular person. And I should have written in greater length as to what I meant. I did subsequently clarify it in replies, but those terrifications were ignored by the media. And essentially, I handed a loaded gun to those who hate me. And arguably to those who are anti-Semitic, to, I shouldn't have thought that I'm quite sorry, that that is not, that was not my intention. So I did, you know, post on a primary timeline to be absolutely clear that I'm not anti-Semitic, and that I, in fact, if anything, am phyllis-Semitic. And the Tripte-Ejor was planned before any of that happened.
Right. Why don't you tell everybody? This is, this says, says, bring them home. The hostages. It was given to me by the parents of one of the hostages. And I said I would wear it as long as there was a hostage story meeting. And I have.
What was that trip like? And obviously, you know that there's a public perception that, and you're clarifying this now, but there's a public perception that that was part of a apology tour, if you will. That this had been said online. There was all of the criticism. There was advertisers leaving. We talked about Bob I got today. I hope they stop. You hope? Don't advertise. You don't want them to advertise? No. What do you mean? If somebody is going to try to blackmail me with advertising, blackmail me with money, go fuck yourself. But go fuck yourself. Is that clear? I hope it is. Hey Bob, if you're in the audience. Well, let me ask you then. That's how I feel. Go advertise. How do you think that about the economics of X?
If part of the underlying model, at least today, and maybe it needs to shift, maybe the answer is it needs to shift away from advertising. If you believe that this is the one part of your business where you will be beholden to those who have this view, what do you do? Why? I understand that there's a reality too. Right? Yes. No, no. I mean, Linda Yacharino is right here and she's got to sell advertising. Absolutely. So, no, no, actually what this advertising boycott is going to do is it's going to kill the company. And do you think that the. And the whole world will know that those advertisers killed the company and we will document it in great detail. But those advertisers I imagine are going to say, they're going to say we didn't kill the company. Oh yeah? They're going to say. They're going to tell to earth. But they're going to say that you killed the company because you said these things and that they were inappropriate things and they didn't feel comfortable on the platform. Right? That's what they're going to say. And let's see how earth responds to that. So, okay, then this goes back to. Well, we'll both make our cases. Right. And we'll see what the outcome is. What are the economics of that for you? I mean, you have enormous resources so you can actually keep this company going for a very long time. Would you keep it going for a long time if there was no advertising? I mean, if the company fails because of an advertised boycott, it will fail because of an advertised boycott. And that will be what bankrupt the company and that's what everybody on earth will know.
What do you think then of the. It's because it's back to the idea of trust though. Then it'll be gone. And it'll be gone because of an advertised boycott. But you recognize that some of those people are going to say that they didn't feel comfortable on the platform. And I just wonder and ask you and think about that for a second. Tell it to the judge. But the judge is going to be. The judge is the public. And you think that the public is going to say that Disney is making a mistake. Yes. And they're going to boycott Disney? They already are. Well, there are some that are for lots of different reasons. But you think that this is going to. That you have the. This goes to actually the interesting of power and leverage. Let the chips fall where they may. Let the chips fall where they may.
Can I ask why that is the approach? I ask it because you've been very. What very approach? Well, you've been very particular about the approach to Tesla. When you think about the engineering involved in that, the approach to SpaceX, the approach to some of the stuff you're doing with AI has been very specific. There's not a let the chips fall where they may approach to those businesses. I don't think. No, we focus on making the best products. And Tesla has gotten to where it's gotten with no advertising at all. I understand that. Tesla currently sells two twice as much in terms of electric vehicles as the rest of electric car makers in the United States combined. Tesla has done more to help the environment than all other companies combined. We're fair to say that therefore as a leader of the company, I've done more for the environment than anyone else, any single human on earth.
How do you feel about that? How do I feel about that? Yeah, no, I'm asking you personally how you feel about that because we're talking about power and influence and. I'm saying, what I care about is the reality of goodness, not the perception of it. And what I see all over the place is people who care about looking good while doing evil. Fuck them.
Okay. Let me ask you this because I think part of this, by the way, there's some people who said, look, owning X to begin with has just created problems. That you've created so many amazing things that are changing our world. And I know you want to make this fabulous town square free speech platform, but that unto itself that that has created such a distraction of all of these things. This is the conversation we're having. We're not focused. We're not talking at least yet and we will. And Tesla, you have your cyber truck deliveries tomorrow and everything else that you're doing. But is there any. Yes, there will be the biggest product launch of anything by far on earth this year. Is there any part of you though that just says, you know what? I just shouldn't have done this. Or maybe I should sell it or give it away or do something else with the X piece of it. Given the propensity for some of the things that you do and say on that platform to create these issues. Yeah. I've all the posts I've done on the platform. I think there might be 30,000 or something like that. Once in a while, I'll say something foolish. And I have. And I'll certainly put that comment, as you said, the Ash Truth among PEPs, one of the most foolish, if not the most foolish thing I've ever done on the platform. And I did do my best to clarify afterwards that I certainly don't mean anything and submit it in that.
The nature of the criticism was simply that the Jewish people have been persecuted for thousands of years. There is a natural affinity, therefore, for persecuted groups. This has led to the funding of organizations that essentially promote any persecuted group or any group with the perception of persecution. This includes radical Islamic groups. Everyone here has seen the massive demonstrations for Hamas in every major city in the West. That should be jarring. Well, a number of those organizations received funding from prominent people in the Jewish community. They didn't expect that to happen. But if you generically, without condition, sort of fund, if you find persecuted groups, in general, some of those persecuted groups, unfortunately, want your annihilation. And what I meant by that, when I subsequently clarified is that it's unwise to find organizations that support groups that want your annihilation. Is this coming across clearly? Yeah, it is.
My question to you, though, I think logically, this makes a lot of sense. Is there any part of you? Just tell me what happens, though, once all of this happens. Let's say you fund a group, and that group supports Hamas who wants you to die. Perhaps you should not fund them. But you do appreciate that when you wade into these very delicate waters, at these very delicate times, that it can create a real, I mean, as it created, headlines for the past two weeks and economic impact. I'm just so curious what happens in your brain. When you see all this happening, are you sitting there going, oh, my God, I stepped in it. I wish I didn't do that. Are you saying, shoot them? I hate these people. Why are they after me? But all of that. Yeah, there's all of that. I mean, look, I'm sorry for that that that Twitter post. It was foolish of me. Of the 30,000, it might be literally the worst and dumbest post that I've ever done. And I try to, my best to clarify, six races on day. But at least, I think over time, it'll be obvious that, in fact, far from being anti-Semitic, I'm in fact, file a Semitic. And all the evidence in my track record would support that. There are people who say crazy things on X, as you know. Maybe you think they're crazy, maybe they're not. The aspiration for X is to be the global town square.
Now, if you were to walk down to, let's say, Times Square. Do you occasionally hear people saying crazy things? Yes, but they don't have the megaphone. Right? And that's a conundrum. They can only say it to the 50 or 100 people that are sitting standing there in Times Square. They don't have a megaphone. I mean, look, the joke I used to make about old Twitter was it was like giving everyone in the psych ward a megaphone. So, you know, I'm aware that things can get promoted that are negative beyond the sort of circle of somebody simply screaming crazy things in Times Square, which happens all the time. You know, so it's actually pretty rare for something, frankly, that is hateful to be promoted. It's not that it never happens, but it's fairly rare. I mean, I would encourage people to look at, for those that use the system, when you look at the sort of the feed that you receive, how often is it hateful? And over time, has it gotten more or less hateful? And I would say that if you look at the X platform today, versus a year ago, I think it is actually much better.
I mean, what is your personal experience? Are you surprised? I'm just curious. I use the platform religiously. I admit to being an addict. You're right. And I use the for you. And I will say, now, the problem is, because I'm a journalist, I go looking for stuff. Well, I'm not awful. I'm just saying. And I also think the algorithm, for me personally, because I'm looking for stuff, also is feeding the other things. This is actually a challenge in that. Like some of those people will say, like, why is it showing me, you know, posts from this person that I hate? And then we're like, well, did you interact a lot with this person that you hate? Well, yes. Well, therefore, things that you want to interact more with this person that you hate. That's like a reasonable.
Well, let me ask this. You know, you kind of want to have an argument. When you tweet. Yeah. Do you ever post, let's say post. When you post. Listen, I'm open. Anyone can I come up with a better word? That would be great. When you post, though. But it's the least bad word I can think of as post.
When you post, though, are you trying to rile up either a base or an audience? Do you recognize the power you have in that? And also, by the way, not just rile up one version of. Yeah. But also rile down, which is to say, as I said, there are people who are demonstrably anti-Semitic on the site who. I get juby-boy things and all sorts of things that come my way. For a while, I thought I was Jewish, though, I'd get it too. But no, but the question is. My name is Supergirl. Do you ever think to yourself, you know what, I'm going to go online, and I'm going to say, these people, I condemn these people that are on my site, saying these things. Because I have said. You say I've condemned an assumption, but do you ever go. Yeah. I said I've. Literally, I literally posted, I condemn anti-Semitism in all its forms. Like, that is a literal post that I made. I mean, I'm like, listen, I can get out the thesaurus if you. You know, and we could.
Let me ask you a different question. You composed it, I'll post it. Okay, let me ask you this. You were on a podcast about a month ago, and you said something that struck me, and it struck me as accurate, came out of your mouth. So hopefully it is. But I'm hoping we go deep on this. This goes through. I don't know, it's not me, and it's true. No, but you said my mind is a storm. I don't think most people would want to be me. They may think they want to be me, but they don't know. They don't understand. What did you mean by that? Your mind being a storm. I have known you for quite some time. I think it is a bit of a storm.
Yes. Yeah, I mean, it is much as a weather metaphor makes sense. My mind often feels like a very wild storm. I mean, I have thought enough ideas. I have more ideas than I could possibly execute. So I have no shortage of ideas. Innovation is not the problem. Execution is the problem. I've got a million ideas. I mean, I've got an entire design for an electric supersonic vertical takeoff jet, but I just can't do that as well. I've had that for 10 years. I've had those million things.
Did you storm a happy storm? No. It's not a happy storm. So, tell us about that. Because I think that that actually, when people try to really understand you, I think that there's a lot of this comes from some other place. And I want to talk about that. What do you think that is? Was she really thinking like a psychiatrist catch or something? I think to some degree, I was born this way, but then I was amplified by a difficult childhood, frankly. But I can remember even in happy moments when I was a kid, that it just feels like there's just a a rage of forces in my mind constantly. Now, this, you know, productively manifests itself in technology and building things for the most part. And I think on balance, the output has been very productive. I think the results, as we discussed earlier with SpaceX, Tesla, PayPal, which is still going today, the first internet company that I started.
In fact, the first internet company I started to do was funded by New York Times company, Hurst Night Ritter. And we wrote some of the software for the New York Times website. And we helped bring online several hundred newspapers that previously were only in print. Now, this is in the 90s, which at this point is like, I'm like a grandpa, basically. You know, the 90s and internet feels like a pre-cambrian era when there were only sponges. So anyway, so, you know, I feel like a lot of productive things have been done. And you can also look at Tesla as being through many companies in one. Like our supercharging network is, if it were, if the Tesla supercharging network were its own company, it would be a fortune 500 company by itself. Just the supercharging system. We also make the cells. We build the power electronics and the powertrain for scratch. We have the most innovative structural design, the largest castings ever used. We have the best manufacturing technology, a Tesla, better manufacturing technology than companies that have been doing it for a hundred years.
事实上,我开始创办的第一家互联网公司是由纽约时报公司和Hurst Night Ritter公司资助的。我们为纽约时报网站编写了一些软件,并帮助将数百家仅出版纸质报纸的报纸转移到了在线平台。现在,这还是在90年代,那个时候对我来说就像是进化论中只有海绵的前寒武纪时代一样。总之,我觉得做了很多有成效的事情。你也可以把特斯拉看作是许多公司的合集。例如,如果特斯拉的超级充电网络是独立的公司,它本身就能成为财富500强公司。我们还自己制造电池,从零开始构建电力电子设备和动力系统。我们拥有最创新的结构设计,使用过最大的铸件。我们拥有比百年老企业还要先进的制造技术。
So these demons of the mind, for the most part, are honest to productive ends. It's Lymaz, because that doesn't mean that once in a while they, they go wrong. And this is a question I think a lot of people are always trying to figure out about not just you, but sometimes themselves. Meaning what is driving all of this? You're doing all of these things. Do you think that you would be as successful, whatever success is, if it wasn't being driven by some, I think that there's something you're trying to prove, either to yourself or to somebody, I don't know. We're all trying to prove something.
It's a proof of truth. It's my mother. I don't know. No, if I were to describe my philosophy, it is a philosophy of curiosity. I mean, I did have this existential crisis when I was around 12. About what's the meaning of life? Isn't it all pointless? Why not just commit suicide? Why exist? I read the religious texts. I read the philosophy books that, well, especially the German philosophy books made me quite depressed, frankly. I want you to not read Schopenhauer in each other as a teenager. But then I read Douglas Adams, who drives the Guide to the Galaxy, which is a book in philosophy in the form of humor.
The point that Adams was making there was that we don't actually know what questions to ask. That's why he said that the answer is 42. Like basically, it was the giant computer and it came up with the answer 42. But then to actually figure out what the question is, that's the actual hard part. I think this is generally true also in physics. At the point of which you can properly frame the question, the answer is actually the easy part. My motivation then was that, well, my life is finite. Really a flash in the pan on a galactic time scale. But if we can expand the scope and scale of consciousness, then we are better able to figure out what questions to ask about the answer that is the universe. And maybe we can find out the meaning of life or even what question to ask is. Where do we come from? Where are we going? Where are the aliens? Are there aliens? These questions, is there new physics to discover? There are real questions about dark matter and dark energy.
The purpose of SpaceX is to extend life beyond Earth on a sustained basis. That we can at least pass one of the Fermi great filters, which is that of being a single planet civilization. If we are single planet civilization, then we are simply waiting around for some extinction event, whether that is man-made or natural. But if you are a single planet civilization, eventually you will, something will happen to that planet and you will die. If you are a multi-planet civilization, you will live much longer. Also, multi-planet civilization is, that's the natural stepping stone to being a multi-stellar civilization and being out there among the stars. This is not simply a defensive motivation, but it is also one that gives meaning, man's search for meaning.
Let me finish this philosophy point, even though it may seem rather esoteric, it may resonate with a few people. We must get past this Fermi filter of being a single planet civilization. And if we do, that will more likely to understand the nature of the universe and what questions to ask. If you believe in the philosophy of curiosity, then I think you should support this ambition. Being a multi-planet species is more than simply life insurance for life collectively. That's a defensive reason. But I think also that life has to be more than simply solving one sad problem after another. There have to be reasons where you wake up in the morning and you're happy to be alive. There have to be reasons that you have to say, why are you excited about the future? What gives you hope? If you aren't sure, ask your kids.
I think the idea of us being a space-faring civilization and being out there among the stars is incredibly inspiring and exciting and something to look forward to. And there need to be such things in the world. Let me ask you a different question about confidence. We were having conversations here earlier, but people and where people get their confidence from. Some people have greater security. Other people have great confidence. And I was thinking about you because you have a very interesting history where people have told you over and over again that you're wrong. Well, sometimes they're right. Well, sometimes they are, but I would say that when it comes to Tesla, when it came to SpaceX, people told you that you were crazy. You were out of your mind. This was never going to happen. It's never going to work.
And so what we might ask you this though is now when people say you're wrong, this isn't right. Do you look at that and say, you know what, that's like a red flag for me because, you know, I've been told so often that I'm wrong that I know that I know I'm right, because I've had that experience. Or are there people in your life when they say, you know what, Elon, this is not right. Do you know what I'm saying? I mean, I think what you're trying to say is that, do I at this point think because I've been right so many times for others, I said, I'm wrong, that now I pass blue on right one, I fact I'm wrong. You do very well. What do you think?
No, I'm right. So yeah, no, look, here's the thing. Physics is unforgiving. Physics is unforgiving. So, I mean, I have these very small sayings that I've come with, that physics is the law and everything else is a recommendation. In the sense that you can break any law made by humans, but try breaking a law made by physics. That's much more difficult. So, if you are wrong and persistent being wrong, the rockets will blow up and the cars will fail.
So, this is, we're not trying to just figure out what flavor of ice cream is the best flavor of ice cream. There's a thousand things that can happen on a rocket flight, and only one of them gets the rocket to orbit. And so, being wrong results in failure when dealing with physical objects. But that's the interesting part. So, now you've built these great companies that physically, the physics of them, are enormously successful. So successful, arguably, that you have leverage over everybody else, right? Nobody else can do Starlink. Nobody else can get the rockets in space yet Amazon and Jeff Bezos are trying, but they haven't yet. I hope he does. You hope he does. I actually agree with with with with a lot of Jeff's motivations. I mean, I think, you know, he's, and so, I'm never put there but this way. If there was a button I could press that would delete Blue Origin, I wouldn't press it. So, I think it's good that he's spending money on making rockets too. You know, it's just perhaps he spent more time on it, but, you know, it's up to him.
But I should make a point here. So, nothing any of my companies have done has been to stifle composition. In fact, we have done the opposite. So, at Tesla, we have open-sourced op-attens. Anyone can use our patent for free. How many companies do you know who've done that? Can you name one? I can't. At SpaceX, we don't use patents. So, I've been saying that once in a while we'll file a patent just so some patent control doesn't cause trouble. But we're not stopping any. We've done nothing anti-competitive. We've done nothing to stop. I'm not just you at all. I'm just going to clarify for the audience because some companies have done anti-competitive things. I think the strange thing or the unusual thing about SpaceX and Tesla is that we've done things that have helped our competition. So, at Tesla, we have made our supercharger system open access. We've made our charger technology available for free to the other manufacturers. The reason I know Wolf Garden, we could have put a wall up. Instead, we invited them in.
The reason I mentioned this, though, is because we've had the success in the physical physics world, you now have these very difficult decisions that have huge impacts on the world that are not physical decisions at all. They're decisions of the mind. They're decisions that you and others have to make. There's a question whether you should be making these decisions at all. And I think about it in the context of Starlink. Obviously, there was the report about how it's being used in Ukraine and the Russia war. There's questions about Taiwan, whether Taiwan should use it or will use it. I believe they're not right now because they're worried that at some point maybe the Chinese will tell you that you have to, they have leverage over you and you're going to have to turn that off. These are very difficult decisions. And I'm so curious how you think about that. And not just the decisions, the fact that you have that power.
I think it's important for the audience to understand that the reason I have these powers is not because of some anti-competitive actions. It's simply because we've executed very well. Oh, I'm not dismissing that. I think there are so many people by the way who are huge, supporters of what you are dating. There are other satellites out there. But they're not as good as yours. And we can say maybe make the same argument out of cars and everything else. But as a result, that gives you enormous leverage. With the exception of the, by the way, these advertisers who aren't on X, in every other instance, everybody needs you. I mean, nobody's letting their views out product if it's better than you, somebody else's heart, if it's the other products better. And I accept that. It may be one day somebody else's created better products. Like, you know, how is it a bad thing to make better products with other companies?
Well, and I wonder as to the back to this, to the Starlink piece of it though, because that has sort of a geopolitical ramification in terms of your power and how you think about that specific power. And then the power that the US government might have, either over you or not over you, the power that Chinese government might have over you, or not over you, and how those things get used. I mean, what are you suggesting? I'm asking the question around this very idea of how these satellites are going to be used, whether you think that you should have control of them, whether the government should have control of them.
How is the government? Well, that's, there's a lot of people who don't trust the government. All right, exactly. But then this goes back to the trust of you, right? I mean, like I said, we're not the only company who has communication satellites. The outside lights are just much better than theirs. So it's not like we have a monopoly. Do you feel like anybody has. It's a product. It's not like. Do you feel anybody has leverage over you? I mean, I think at the end of the day, if we make bad products that people don't want to use, then the users will vote with their resources and use something else.
It's a tit at the conversation for a second. Certainly, my company is overseen by regulators. And while, you know, since SpaceX, Starlink, Tesla, are overseen by cumulatively over 100 regulators, and actually more than that, a few hundred regulators, because you've got, we're in 55 countries, if you sum up all the times that I had an argument with regulators, of hundreds of regulators over decades, it can sound really terrible, except they forgot to mention that there were 10 million regulations we complied with, and only five that I disagreed with. But it was all the five, and it sounds like, wow, this guy's a real maverick. I'm like, yeah, but what about the 10 million we complied with?
Do you, let me, one related thing on this, the leverage of countries and things over you, regulators, X is this free speech platform. You do business in China, lots of business, China, that's an important part of your business I imagine. Well, that's SpaceX. How do you think about the leverage that the Chinese have over you, and do they have leverage over you? And how do you feel about, some people would say, is it hypocritical for you to be doing business in China, or if, frankly, in other countries where, as it relates to X and other things, that don't follow this free speech path that you have espoused? The best that the platform can do is adhere to the laws of any given country. Do you think there's something more we could do than that? I think it would be very hard, but I just wonder given the sort of strong philosophical approach that you've been vocal about, whether you say to yourself, you know, maybe I shouldn't be doing business in that country.
Well, first of all, Starlink and SpaceX do our no-business in China whatsoever. Tesla has one of four factories, four vehicle factories in China, and China is, you know, I don't know, a quarter of our market or something like that. So it's a quarter of a market of one company. The same is true, by the way, of all the other car companies. They also have something on that order of quarter of their sales in China. So if you, if that's a problem for Tesla, it's a problem for every car company. I mean, I think one has to be careful about not conflating the various companies, because I can only do things that are within the bounds of the law. I cannot do beyond that. My aspiration is to do as much good as possible and to be as productive as possible within the bounds of what is legal, more than that I cannot do.
I want to pivot and talk about AI for a moment. We had Jensen Wong here, who's a big fan of yours, as you know. Yeah, Jensen's also talking about talking about bringing you the first box, by the way, with Ilya, interestingly enough.
Yes. Back in 2016, I think. There's a video of Jensen and me unpacking the first AI computer at OpenAI. So I'm so curious what you think of what's just happened over the past two weeks, while you were dealing with this other headline, series of headlines. There was a whole other series of headlines.
Co-founded. Well, the whole arc of OpenAI, frankly, is a little troubling, because the reason for starting OpenAI was to create a counterweight to Google and DeepMind, which at the time had two-thirds of all AI talent and basically infinite money and compute. And there was no counterweight. It was a unipolar world.
And Larry and Page, and I used to be very close friends, and I would stay at his house, and I would talk to Larry into the late hours the night about AI safety. And it became apparent to me that Larry did not care about AI safety. I think perhaps the thing that gave it away was when he called me a species for being pro-humanity, as in, you know, like a race, but poor species. So I'm like, wait a second. What side are you on, and I'm like, okay, listen, this guy calling me a speciesist. He doesn't care about AI safety. We've got to have some counterpoint here, because this seems like we could be. This is no good.
So OpenAI was actually started, and it was meant to be open source. I named it OpenAI after open source. It is, in fact, closed source. Super close. It should be renamed super close source for maximum profit AI. So because this is what it actually is. I mean, Fay loves Ierny. I mean, in fact, Fred of mine says the way to predict outcomes is the most ironic outcome is the most. There's an outcomes razor, like the simplest sort of explanations most likely. And my friend, Jonah's view is that the most ironic outcome is the most likely. And that's what happened with OpenAI. It's gone from an open source foundation of 5123 to suddenly it's like a 90 billion dollar full profit corporation with closed source. So I don't know how you go from here to there. That seems like a. I don't know. How you get. I don't know if. Is this legal?
So as you saw Sam Altman get ousted by somebody you know, Iliya. And Iliya was somebody. was a friend of yours. You brought him there. Your relationship with Larry Page effectively broke down over you recruiting him away at this.
That's correct. That was the fact. That was the Larry refused to be friends with me after I recruited Iliya. And so here's Iliya apparently saying something is very wrong. I think we should be concerned about this because I think Iliya actually has a strong moral compass. He thinks about. You know, he really sweats it over questions of what is right. And if Iliya felt strongly enough to want to, you know, fire Sam, well, I think the world should know what was that reason.
Have you talked to him? I've reached out but he doesn't want to talk to anyone. Have you talked to other people behind the scenes? Is this all happening? I've talked to a lot of people. Nobody. I've not found anyone who knows why. Have you? I think we are all still trying to find out. I mean, one of the few things is either it was a serious thing and we should know what it is or it was not a serious thing and then the board should resign.
What do you think of Sam Altman? I have mixed feelings about Sam. I do. You know, the ring of power can't corrupt. And he is the ring of power. So, you know, I don't know. I think. I want to know why Iliya felt so strongly as fire Sam. This sounds like a serious thing. I don't think it was trivial. And I'm quite concerned that there's some, you know, dangerous element of AI that they've. They've. Discovered. Yes. You think they've discovered something? That'll be my guess.
Where are you with your own AI efforts relative to where you think open AI is, where you think Google is, where you think the others are?
I mean, on the AI front, I'm in somewhat of a quandary here because I've thought AI could be something that would change the world in a significant way since I was in college, I mean, like 30 years ago. But the reason I didn't go both AI right from the get go was because I was uncertain about which edge of the double edge sword would be sharper. The good edge of the bad edge. So, I held a fund during anything on AI. I could have created, I think, leading an AI company and kind of opened AI actually cut his that because I was just uncertain if you make this magic genie what will happen.
Whereas I think building sustainable energy technology is much more of a single edge sword that is single edged good, making life multi-planetary, I think single edged good. You know, so I think mostly single edged good. I mean, giving people better connectivity to people that don't have connectivity or too expensive, I think is very, you know, very much a good thing. So, I think it was instrumental, by the way, in halting the Russian advance, the Ukrainian said so. So, you know, I think there's, but with AI, you've got the magic genie problem. You may think you want a magic genie, but once you see that genie is out of the bottle, it's hard to say what happens.
How far are we away from that genie being out of the bottle, you think? We think it's already out. When the genie is certainly poking its head out. The AGI, the idea of artificial general intelligence, given what you now are working on yourself and you know how easy your heart is to train, to create the inferences, to create the weights. I hope I'm not getting too far in the weeds of just how this works, but those are the basics behind the software end of this. They're funny, you know, all these weights, they're just basically numbers in a comma-separated value file, and that's our digital guard, the CSP file. Not that funny. But that's kind of literally what it is.
So, I think it's coming pretty fast, you know. Is that, I mean, you've famously have admitted to overstating how quickly things will happen, but how quickly do you think this will happen? If you say smarter than the smartest human, at anything? Yeah. It may not be then quite smarter than all humans, well machine-augmented humans, you know, because we keep people who got computers and stuff. It's a higher bar, but you say it's more than any, you know, can write as good a novel and say, JK Rowling or discover new physics or invent new technology. I would say that we're less than three years from that point.
Let me ask you a question about XAI and what you're doing. And because there's an interesting thing that's different, I think, about what you have relative to somebody else, which you have data, you have information, you have all of the stuff that everybody in here has put on the platform to sort through. And I don't know if everybody realized that initially. What is the value of that? Yeah, I mean, data is very important. You could say that data is probably more valuable than gold. But then maybe you have more, maybe you have the gold in X in a different way, in a way, again, that I don't know if the public appreciates what that means. Yes, X is the, it might be the single best source of data. I mean, it is, there are more, you know, people links that go to, if you'll click on more links to X than anything else on Earth, sometimes people think Facebook or Instagram is a bigger thing, but actually there are more links to X than anything. You can, there's public information, you can Google it.
Okay, let me ask you, A. So it is, it is where you would find what is happening right now on Earth at any given point in time. The whole Open ad drama played out, in fact, on the X platform. So it is one of the, it's not, you know, Google certainly has a massive amount of data, so is Microsoft. So it's not like, but it is one of the best sources of data.
Can I ask you an interesting IP issue, which I think is actually something I can say as somebody who's in the creator business and journalistic business and whatnot, where care about copyright. So one of the things about training on data has been this idea that you're not going to train or these things are not being trained on people's copyrighted information. Historically, that's been the concept. Yeah, that's a huge lie. Say that again? That's what these AI, what these ads are all trained on copyrighted data, obviously. So you think it's a lie when Open AI says that this is not, none of these guys say they're training on copyrighted data. Oh, that's a lie. It's a lie. Straight up. Straight up lie. Okay. Now I'm saying, obviously it's been trained on copyrighted data.
Okay, so the second question, which is all of the people who have been uploading, it's like about every minute, all of the people who have been uploading articles, the best quotes from different articles, videos, 2x, all of that can be trained on. And it's interesting because people put all of that there and those quotes have historically been sort of fair use, right? People are putting those quotes up there and individually on a fair use basis, you'd say, okay, that makes sense. But now there are people who do threads and by the way, there may be multiple people who've done, you know, an article that has a thousand words, technically all thousand words could have made it onto X somehow. And effectively, now you have this remarkable repository. And I wonder what you, how you think about that again and how you think the creative community and those who were the original IP owners should think about that. I don't know except to say that by the time these lawsuits have decided we'll have digital God. So that's a digital God at that point. These lawsuits won't be decided before on a timeframe that is relevant. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? I think we live, you know, there's that, I don't know if it's actually a real Chinese thing or not, but it may live an interesting time. It's apparently not a good thing. But I would prefer it personally, I would prefer to live an interesting times. And we live in the most interesting of times. I think for a while I was like really getting demotivated and losing cleave over the threat of AI danger. And then I finally sort of became fatalistic about it and said well, even if I knew it was annihilation was certain, would I choose to be alive at that time or not? And I said I probably would have choose to be alive at that time because it's the most interesting thing, even if there's nothing I could do about it. So then, you know, then basically sort of a fatalistic resignation helped me sleep at night because I was having trouble sleeping at night because of AI danger. Now, what to do about it? I mean, I've been the biggest, the one banging the drum, the hardest by far, the longest, or at least one of the longest for AI danger. And these regulatory things that are happening, the single biggest reason they're happening is because of me. We're ever going to get their arms around it. We talked to the vice president this afternoon. She said she wants to regulate it. People can try to regulate social media for years and have done nothing effectively.
Well, there's regulation around anything which is like a physical danger to a danger to the public. So like cars are heavily regulated, communications are heavily regulated, rockets and aircraft are heavily regulated. The general philosophy about regulation is that when something is a danger to the public that there needs to be some government oversight. So I think in my view, AI is more dangerous than nuclear bombs, and we regulate nuclear bombs. You can't just go make a nuclear bomb in your backyard. I think we should have some kind of regulation with AI.
Now, this tends to cause the AI acceleration to get up and arms because they think AI is sort of heaven basically. But you typically don't like regulation. You've pushed back on regulators for the most party in the world of Tesla. So many instances where we read articles about you pushing back on the regulators. I'm so curious why in this instance now you own one of these businesses.
As I said a moment ago, one should not take what is viewed in the media as being the whole picture. There are literally hundreds, not an exaggeration, so there are probably 100 million regulations that my companies comply with. And there are probably five that we don't. And if we disagree with some of those regulations, it's because we think the regulation that is meant to do good doesn't actually do good. But that's an interesting thing. It's not the thing to find regulations for the state. But the question is if there are laws and rules, whether the idea is that you're making the decision that the law and the rule shouldn't be the law and the rule and then right isn't.
No, I'm saying you're fundamentally mistaken. And it should be obvious that you're mistaken. My companies, automotive is heavily regulated. We would not be allowed to put cars in the road if we did not comply with this vast body of regulation. Now you could fill up the stage with literally six foot high with the regulations that you have to comply with to make a car. You could have a room full of phone books. That's how big the regulations are. And if you don't comply with all of those, you can't sell the car. And if we don't comply with all the regulations for rockets or for Starlink, they shut us down. So in fact, I am incredibly compliant with regulations. Now once in a while, there'll be something that I disagree with. The reason I would disagree with this is because I think the regulation in that particular case, in that rare case, does not serve the public good. And therefore, I can give this my obligation to object to a regulation that is mentally so the public good if it doesn't. That's the only time I object, not because I seek to object.
In fact, I'm incredibly rule following. Let me ask you a separate question, a social media related question. We've been talking about TikTok today, ahead of the election. What do you think of TikTok? Do you think it's a national security threat? I don't use TikTok. You don't? I don't personally use it. But for people that, for teenagers and people in their 20s, they seem almost religiously addicted to TikTok. So we will watch TikTok for like two hours a day. I stopped using TikTok when I felt the AI probing my mind and it made me uncomfortable. So I stopped using it. And in terms of anti-Semitic content, TikTok is rife with that. It has the most viral anti-Semitic content by far. But do you think the Chinese government is using it to manipulate the minds of Americans? No. Is that something that you think we should worry about? I mean, you have different states that are trying to ban it. I don't think this is some Chinese government plot. But it is the TikTok algorithm is entirely AI powered. So it is really just trying to find the most viral thing possible. But what is going to keep you glued to the screen? That's it. On sheer numbers, there are on the order of 2 billion Muslims in the world. And I think small number of Jewish people. 20 million something. Many orders of magnitude fewer. So if you just look at content production on sheer numbers basis, this is going to be overwhelmingly anti-Semitic.
Let me ask you a political question. And I've been trying to square this one in my head for a long time. In the last two or three years, you have moved decidedly to the right. I think. Have I? Well, we can discuss this. I think that you have been espousing and promoting a number of Republican candidates and others. You've been very frustrated with the Biden administration over, I think, unions and feeling like they did not respect what you've created.
I mean, without any during nothing to provoke the Biden administration, they held an electric vehicle summit at the White House and specifically refused to let Tesla attend. This was in the first six months of the administration. And we inquired, we're like, we literally make more electric cars than everyone else combined. Why are we not allowed? Why are you only letting your Ford GM Chrysler and UAW and you're specifically disallowing us from the EV summit at the White House? We've done nothing to provoke them. Then Biden went on to add insult to injury and publicly said that GM was leading the electric car revolution. This was in the same quarter that Tesla made 300,000 electric cars and GM made 26. Does that seem fair to you?
So tell me this then. It doesn't seem fair. And I've asked repeatedly, you've probably seen a lot of that. I had a great relationship with Obama. So this is not a. But then there's this. But then there's this. I voted for Obama. I stood in the house for six hours to shake Obama's head. So let me just ask on a personal level. I can see it in your face. This hurt you personally. And it hurt the company too. And it was an insult to. Tesla has 140,000 employees. Okay. Half of them are in the United States. Tesla has created more manufacturing jobs than everyone else combined.
So let me ask this then. You've devoted at least the last close to 20 years of your life, if not more, to the climate, climate change, trying to get Tesla off the ground in part to improve climate. You talked about that. Yeah. A real right-wing motive is. Repeatedly. Got it. Far right. If anything. No. I understand that. And then it's so. It's a reverse psychology next level. Well, no. But so here's the question. Which is how do you square the support that you have given? I believe you were at a fundraiser for Vivek Ramaswami, for example, who says that the climate issue is a hoax. Right?
I disagree with some of that. But I would think that that would be such a singular issue for you. I would think that the climate issue would be such a singular issue for you that actually it would disqualify almost anybody who didn't take that issue seriously. Well, I haven't endorsed anyone for President. I mean, I wanted to hear what Vivek had to say, because I think some of his things are. That's one of the things he says I think are pretty solid. He's concerned about government overreach, about government control of information. I mean, the degree to which old Twitter was basically a soft puppet of the government was ridiculous.
So, it seems to me that there's a very severe violation of the First Amendment in terms of how much control the government had over old Twitter. And it no longer does. So, there's a reason for the First Amendment. The reason for the First Amendment for freedom of speech is because the people that immigrated to this country came from a place where there was not freedom of speech. And they were like, you know what? We've got to make sure that that's constitutional because where they came from, if they said something, they'd be put in prison, or there'd be something that would happen to them. And freedom of speech, you have to say, when is it relevant? It's only relevant when someone you don't like can say something you don't like, or it has no meaning. And as soon as you sort of. You know, throw in the towel and concede to censorship, it is only a matter of time before someone censors you. And that is why we have the First Amendment.
Could you see yourself voting for President Biden? If it's a Biden Trump election, for example? I think I would not vote for Biden. You'd vote for Trump. I'm not saying I would vote for Trump, but I mean. This is definitely a difficult choice here. Would you vote for Nikki Haley? Nikki Haley, by the way, wants all social media names to be exposed, as you know. No, I think that's outrageous. Yeah, no. I'm not going to vote for some prose and censorship candidate. Like I said, I mean, I think these. You have to consider that there is a lot of wisdom in these amendments, in the Constitution. And a lot of these things, we take for granted here in the United States. That don't even exist in Canada. There's not enough constitutional rights to freedom of speech in Canada. So, and there's no random rights in Canada. People think you have the right to romance on. You don't actually in Canada. So, half Canadian, I can say these things off of. But, you know, so the freedom of speech is incredibly important, even when people say it. And I like that. It's actually especially important. In fact, it is only relevant when people you don't like can say things you don't like.
And do you think right now that. They're meaningless. You think right now the Republican candidates or the Democrats are more inclined. I mean, this is where you go to, I assume, to to to woke and anti-woken, the mind virus issue that you've talked about. Which party do you think is more pro freedom of speech given all the things you've seen? We also see, you know, DeSantis, you know, preventing people from reading certain things. Maybe you maybe think that's correct.
No. Look, we actually are in an odd situation here where on balance, the Democrats appear to be more pro-censorship than the Republicans. I mean, that used to be the opposite. It used to be, you know, the left position was freedom of speech. You know, I believe at one point the ACLU even defended the right of someone to claim that they were not see or something like that. You know, so like they really were like the left was freedom of speech is fundamental.
And I mean, my, the perception, perhaps it is inaccurate, is that the pro-censorship is more on the left than than the right. We certainly get more complaints from the left than the right. Let me put that away.
So, but my aspiration for the ex platform is that it is the best source of truth, or the least inaccurate source of truth. And well, you know, I don't know if you want to believe me or not, but I think honesty is the best policy. And I think that the truth will win over time. And the, you know, we've got this great system and it's getting better called community notes, which is fantastic. I think it correcting falsehoods or adding context.
In fact, we make a point of not removing anything, but only adding context. Now, that context could include that this is completely false, and here's why. And no one is immune to this. I'm not immune to it. Advertisers are not immune to it. In fact, we've had community notes, which has caused us some loss in advertising, speaking of loss in advertising revenue. If a community note, if this false advertising, the community note will say this is false. And here is why. I mean, like, there's one specific example that is public knowledge that I'll mention it, which is at one point Uber had this ad which said, earn like a boss. And it was community noted, if by boss you mean $12.47 an hour. This, that caused at least a temporary suspension of advertising from Uber.
I got to ask you a question that might make everybody in the room uncomfortable or not uncomfortable. It goes to the free speech issue. The New York Times Company and the New York Times newspaper, it appeared over the summer to be throttled. What went in? The New York Times. Well, we do require that everyone has to buy a subscription and we don't make exceptions for anyone. And I think if I want the New York Times, I have to pay for a subscription and they don't give me a free subscription. So I'm not going to give them a free subscription.
But were you throttling the New York Times relative to other news organizations, relative to everybody else? Was it specific to the Times? They didn't buy a subscription. By the way, it cost like $1,000 a month. So if they just do that, then they're back in the saddle. But you are saying that it was throttled. I'm saying, was there a conversation that you had with somebody you said, look, you know, I'm unhappy with the Times. They should either be buying the subscription or I don't like their content or whatever.
Any organization that refuses to buy a subscription is not going to be recommended. But then what does that say about free speech? And what does that say about amplifying free storage? It costs a little bit. Right. But that's it. But that's an interesting, you know, it's like in South Park, when they say, you know, freedom is in free. It costs about go five or whatever. So but it's pretty cheap. Okay. Low cost, low cost freedom. I got a couple more questions for you. You're heading back to Texas after this. Freedom to launch this diver truck. Yeah. It's going to be a big launch. But I wanted to ask you right now more broadly just about the car business and what you see actually happening. And specifically, the government put in place lots of policies, as you know, to try to encourage more EVs. And one of the things that's happened uniquely is you have now a lot of car companies saying, actually, this is too ambitious for us. These plans are too ambitious, 4,000 dealers. I don't know if you saw this yesterday sent the letter to the White House saying, this has gone too far. You're going too far. You had this. And TV. It was an it was a this is going too fast, too far, and that there's not enough demand are underneath all this is this idea that maybe there's not enough demand for EVs that the American public has not bought into the I mean, they bought into with your company, but they haven't bought into it broadly enough.
Well, I think if you make a compelling electric car, people will buy it. No question about it. I mean, electric car sales in China are gigantic. That's by far the biggest category. And I think that would be the you know, I mean, it's worth noting. Okay, so the probably the best reputation of that is that the Tesla Model Y will be the best selling car of any kind on Earth this year. Of any kind, gasoline or otherwise, is there another car company that you think still get good job with this? I mean, I think the Chinese car companies are extremely competitive by far our toughest competitions in China. So I mean, there's there's a lot of people out there who think that the top 10 car companies are going to be Tesla followed by nine Chinese car companies. I think they might not be wrong. So China is super good at manufacturing and the work ethic is incredible. So, you know, like if we consider different leagues of competitiveness at Tesla, we consider the Chinese League to be the most competitive. And by the way, we do very well in China because our China to China team is the best.
How worried are you that the unionization effort that just took place at what I shouldn't say effort, but the new wages and like at GM and Ford are that they're coming for you. And they are coming for you. What is that going to mean to you in your business? Well, I mean, I think it's generally not good to have an adversarial relationship between people online, you know, one group at the company and another group. In fact, I mean, I just agree with the idea of unions, but for past four reasons, that is different than people may expect, which is I just don't like anything which creates kind of a lords and peasants sort of thing. And I think the unions naturally try to create negativity in a company and create a sort of lords and peasants situation. There are many people at Tesla who have gone from working on the line to being in senior management. There is no lords and peasants. Everyone eats at the same table, everyone parks in the same parking lot. You know, at GM, there's a special elevator for only for senior executives. We have no such thing at Tesla. You know, the things that I actually know the people on the line because I worked on the line and I walked the line and I stepped in the factory and I worked beside them. So I'm not a stranger to them. And then actually many times where I've said, well, can't we just hold a union vote?
But apparently a company is not allowed to hold a union vote. So it has to be somehow cool for it, but the unions can't do it. So I said, well, let's just have a hold of it and see what happens. The actual problem is the opposite. It's not that people are trapped at Tesla building cars. The challenges is how do we retain great people to do the hard work of folding cars when they have like six other opportunities that they can do that are easier? That's the actual difficulty is that building cars is hard work and there are much easier jobs. And I just want to say that I'm incredibly appreciative of those who both cars and they know it. So, I don't know, maybe there will be unionized. If Tesla gets unionized, it will be because we deserve it and we failed in some way. But we certainly try hard to ensure the prosperity of everyone. We give everyone stock options. We've made many people who were just working online who didn't even know what stocks were. We've made them millionaires.
So we're going to run out of time. Find a couple quick questions. When do you have the time to tweet or to post? I actually think about it all the time. As I said, I use it. Well, I use it bathroom sometimes. I use it all the time. Meaning if we were to open up our phones and look at the screen time, what does yours look like? Well, about every three hours, I make a trip to the laboratory. That's the only time you do this? Seems like you're on there a lot. No, I mean, there'll be like brief moments between meetings. Obviously, I've like 17 jobs. I guess technically it's work at this point. It is. But I'm thinking just in terms of your mind, share. By the way, there's a lot of people who should be working who are on this. Technically posting on Twitter or X is work. It does count as work. So that's you know, here's that. But no, I mean, I think I'm on. Well, I guess usually probably I'm on for longer than I think I am. But do you think that's five hours a day? If we're at the screen time of like a number of hours per week, tonight that's a scary number. It's probably, I don't know, it's a little over an hour a day or something like that. Just an hour a day.
If we really looked at this together, do you have your phone with you? Yeah. You want a look? Okay. Okay, here we go. You ready? Screen time. It's general. Yeah, screen time. Sometimes this is a scary number, but. I know. That's why I thought. I just got a new phone. So I think this is not accurate because it's one minute. For sure. It's more than that. Wait, it's over the week. Go to the week. Okay, so it's still wrong. It's more than four minutes. I just got a new phone. So this is not accurate. This literally says four minutes. New phone. Tim Cook's into the phone? New phone who does. I should ask, by the way, because I just mentioned Tim Cook. Do you feel like you're going to have to have a battle with him eventually? Is that the next fight over the App Store? The idea of making a phone. What do you mean like? No, no, no. Over the App Store. You ever make a phone? Sam Altman's apparently thinking about making a phone with Johnny Add. I mean, I don't think there's a real need to make a phone. I mean, if there's an essential need to make a phone or make a phone, but I got a lot of free supply. So I mean, I do think there's a fundamental challenge that phone makers have at this point because you've got basically a black rectangle. How do you make that better? Do you want to do that? What does that look like in Elon's head? No, that's literally, yeah, good face in the head. New link. Well, there we go. The best interface would be a neural interface directly to your brain. So that would be a neural interface. How far away do you think from that? And how excited or scary does that seem to be? And we read these headlines, obviously, about a monkeys who died, as you know. What should we think about that?
Yeah, actually, the USDA inspector who came by the neural link facilities literally said, in her entire career, she has never seen a better animal care facility. It is, we are the nicest channels that you could possibly be, even to the rats and mice, even though they did the plague and everything. So it is like monkey paradise. So the thing that gets conflated is that there were some terminal monkeys where, this is actually several years ago, where the monkeys were about to die. And we're like, OK, we've got an experimental device. It's the kind of thing which only put in a monkey that's about to die. And then, you know, now the monkey died, but it didn't die because of the neural link died because it was, you know, had a terminal case of cancer or something like that. So, neural link has never caused the death of the monkey. It's the best, unless they're hiding something for me, it's never caused the death of the monkey. And in fact, we've now had monkeys with neural link implants for like two, three years, and they're doing great. So, and we've even replaced the neural link twice. And we're getting ready to do the first implants in, hopefully in a few months. The early implementations of neural link, I think, are unequivocally good. Speaking of the double-edged sword, I think these early implementations are single-edged sword because the first implementations will be to enable people who have lost the brain body connection to be able to operate a computer or a phone faster than someone who has hands that work. So, you can imagine if Stephen Hawking could communicate faster than someone who had full full body functionality. Now, incredible, that would be. Well, that's what this device will do. And we should have a proof of that in a human, hopefully in a few months. It already works in monkeys and works quite well with monkeys that can play video games just using, just by thinking. So, in the next application, after the sort of dealing with tetraplegics, quadriplegics is going to be vision. Vision is the next thing. So, it's like if somebody has lost both eyes or the optic nerve has failed, basically where there's, they have no possibility of having sort of some ocular correction. That will be the next thing for Neuralink is a direct vision interface. And in fact, then you could be like Jordy LeFourge from Star Trek. You could see in like any frequency, actually. You could see in radar if you want.
Two final questions. And then we're going to do in this conversation, which I think has taken everybody inside the mind of Elon Musk today. Not as well as Neuralink, well, well. It actually goes to self-driving cars and vision and everything else.
And I asked this question of Pete Buttigieg, transportation secretary. It's actually something you retweeted. So, I wanted to ask you the same question. There's a big question about autonomous vehicles and the safety of them. But there's also a question about when it will be politically palatable in this country. For people to die in cars that are controlled by computers, which is say we have 35,000, 40,000 deaths every year in this country. Yeah.
If you could bring that number down to 10,000, 5,000, that might be a great thing. But do we think that the country will accept the idea that 5,000 people, that your family might have perished in a vehicle as a result, not of a human making a mistake, but of a computer? Yes. Well, first of all, humans are terrible drivers. So, people text and drive, they drink and drive, they get into arguments, they deal with sorts of things in cars that they should not do. So, it's actually remarkable that there are not more deaths than there are.
What we'll find with computer driving is, I think, probably in order of magnitude reduction in deaths. I think, now, in the US has actually far fewer deaths per capita than the rest of the world. If you go worldwide, I think there's something close to a million deaths per year due to automotive accidents. So, I think computer driving will probably drop that by 90 percent or more. It won't be perfect, but it'll be 10 times better.
And do you think that the public will accept that? Do you think the government will accept that? Well, in large numbers, it will simply be so obviously true that it really cannot be denied.
And what do you think? I know we've talked about the timeline before, and I know people have criticized you for putting out timelines that may not have come true just yet. But what do you think it will not be? And by the way, do you ever say to yourself, I shouldn't have said that. Sure, of course. Wait, I should have said that. So, yeah, I'm optimistic about, I think I'm like naturally optimistic about time scales. And if I was not naturally optimistic, I wouldn't be doing the things that I'm doing. I mean, I suddenly wouldn't have started a rock company or a electric car company if I didn't have some sort of pathological optimism, frankly.
So, as you pointed out, many people said they would fail. And in fact, actually, I agreed with them. I said, yes, it probably will fail. And they're like, okay. But I thought the basics and tests, I had less than a 10 percent chance of success when we started them. So, yeah, anyway, but the self-driving thing is, I've been optimistic about it. We certainly made a lot of progress. If anybody has tried, has been using the sort of full self-driving beta, the progress is, you know, every year has been substantial.
It's really now at the point where in most places, it'll take you from one place to another with no interventions. And the data is unequivocal that that supervised full self-driving is somewhere around four times safer or maybe more than just human driving by themselves. So, I'm, you know, I can certainly see it coming. Do you think it's another five or 10 years? I mean, people say, no, no, definitely not. Definitely not. And do you feel like investors have invested in something that hasn't happened yet? Is that fair to them? And that's the other question that people have about that.
Well, I mean, I think that they've all, with rare exception, thought it wasn't happening. So, they were investing, despite thinking, they're very clear that they don't think it's real. So, they don't saying, oh, we just leave everything you want, says, hook, line, and sinker. But, the other thing is that, I mean, I would be a fair criticism of me to say that I'm late, but it doesn't, but I always deliver in the end.
And that's the final question. I took note of this. It was November 11th, and you took to Twitter and you wrote only two words. You said amplify empathy. Right. I was taken back by that, keeping all the things that have been going on in the world. Do you remember what you were thinking?
Well, I think it's quite literally. I understand it, but what was going on? Why did you write that? Well, I was encouraging people to amplify empathy. Literally. I tend to be quite literal. But was there something that happened that you had seen that you said to yourself, I want to say that? I think I'm just going to do some friends. And we all agreed that we should try to amplify empathy. And so I wrote amplify empathy.
If you wanted an unvarnished look inside the mind of Elon Musk, I think you just saw it. But sometimes it's pretty simple, you know.
如果你想看到埃隆·马斯克思维的真实模样,我想你刚刚见识到了。但有时候,事情也是很简单的,你知道的。
Elon Musk, thank you very, very much for the conversation. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you so much. Here. Take that with you for a second. Thank you.
I'm just going to say thank you to everybody who stuck around for what has been a remarkable day. We are so appreciative of everybody who has been with us for so many years coming back to this every year. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I hope you had a great day. And I hope we have an opportunity to do this again.