You know, it's somewhat frankly predictable. Yes, yes, well that's not what we're about. As you know, at ARC, we're all about the future, trying to figure out the way the world's going to work. And well, I'd love to give you an opportunity right now to you know, address what you think mainstream media does not understand because there's such a big story here. There are so many big stories that you know, offer all kinds of hope and you know, really transformation in the future, and you're leaving
the charge. So what don't they get, do you think, and what would you like to what would you like them to understand? Well, I think that's quite a long list of things that don't understand or where they basically don't wish to focus on because it doesn't quite lead to clicks and traffic. So I guess, I guess I could I could you know, go over at a high level what space Exit has are accomplishing or have accomplished this year. You know, well you just said that like media is a dwindling pie,
and you own a big kind of like media platform franchise. How do you think about the future of X within that context, and how it should evolve. Well, I mean X is actually growing in traffic, so I mean, again when doesn't know quite which to believe. But uh, the you know, when you look at the traffic numbers, the traditional media is down, but but X's is up, So you know, I think that's you know, of course for optimism. But of course the traditional media would
never actually write a story about that. I'm not going to write a story that says, hey, we're losing an X is winning is a very unlikely headline. In fact, you see the opposite headlines which are quite misleading that X FK Twitter is dying or dead or whatever. I mean, how many times have we seen that headline. It's getting a little tedious. I mean you can just press, you know, repost the same thing every month,
is what it seems like. So you know, that's you know, So I think I feel quite optimistic about the sort of X platform and where it's going. And we're adding a ton of functionality that I think people will find useful. There's been immense progress in just the course of a year. We've accomplished more advancements in a year than I think in the Twitter done in the
prior at least five years. So, yeah, one of the we've been talking a lot about X. We know, we own it in our venture fund, and we've been talking about, you know, the democratization that you are enabling in many ways. We were just going back to Tesla. You'll remember that, you know when when Tesla, when you were thinking about taking a private I implored you, you know, no, you know the you know we've been supporting We the retail investor and others have been supporting Tesla,
don't take it private. You'll you'll take it you know away, this incredible growth opportunity. And so thank you for that. That was a democratization move. But Twitter, yeah, should I should say that that, you know, your little play was influential, you know, played as a significant role in the decision ultimately not to take the company private. We could have taken the company private. The downside was that it would have been quite a big
distraction. So and of course it would would have made it difficult for many investors to remain invested. And I mean the combination of factors of complexity having to leave behind so many investors. Really that was Those are the two factors that you know why we decided not to take company private. We absolutely could have. I want to be just absolutely super clear, No, no, I know that, And we did have funding secured, so you know,
it was six more than enough funding. You know, it's it's it's worth bear in mind that, you know, I was sued in a San Francisco court which which was jury shopped by a class action plaintiff law firm. It's always it's important bear in mind in these class action laws lawsuits, the media will actually write as though it is actually an aggrieved shareholder, but in fact it is not. The true plaintiff is the class action law firm, and the plaintiff is simply a puppet. Yes, so, but the media never
never mentioned this. You took Twitter private, was, you know, to to really enable free speech? And again the whole democratization, this democratization concept, you know, we're we're all about that as well. We give our research away. We want people to understand how how much the world's changing, how technologically enabled innovation is going to transform could transform everyone's lives for the better if they get on the right side of change. So so, yeah,
thank you, Well, absolutely so. The there's that kind of like maybe an augment that sounds or kind of esoteric. But it's the way I actually think about it that you can think of the X platform or social media in general as kind of a collective consciousness or group mind, and you want to have as much signal and as little noise as possible. And obviously we've got
a lot of work to do on that front. But you want your information to becoming you from people who are experts in the field or who are in the case of let's say a war zone, literally in the field, and as opposed to filtered through journalists who are not experts in the field and who most of the time from probably ninety nine percent of time are literally not in the scene. At the scene, there's only a few reporter, sometimes only one reporter at the scene. So now, in the past that it was
the only way to have things work. That's why, you know, so the legacy structure in the past was you had to have information filtered to media organizations and then too and then and then they would decide what to publish, and they publish it, and then people would read really a small subset of what was actually going on in the world, and obviously a subset that was
chosen by a handful of editors curated, Yeah, curated. So it's it's sort of if the editors weren't that interested in the subject, you simply didn't care about it. So now that's in the past, especially in a non Internet world, that's kind of how things. There was really another way to do it. You didn't really have a mechanism for connecting all of the humans.
But now with the Internet and a fast moving social media or what social media is terrible word, but fast moving sort of platform, like like the X platform, you can actually get have all of the you can get all the people out there that are on the platform, reporting information, distilling it down, have people who are who are world class experts in their field tell
you exactly what's going on. I mean, if you see, for example, the AI discussions on X are by far the best relately, absolutely absolutely. You know, Elon we I conceived of this open source research ecosystem that we've evolved in twenty twelve. I never dreamed that Twitter at the time, it was for tweens and teens and celebrities, and there's still some of those
on BED. I never dreamed that it would become our primary platform for giving away our research and having dialogue with the people in the field out there who are innovating. You know, we're getting information that no one else in the financial world doing it the traditional way is getting just because we are engaging with these you know, with the innovators. So it's it's a marvelous platform. And I think it's the knowledge workers platform. Yeah, hi, Elen,
this is Jelly. Hey, how's it going it? It would be great to learn more about how you're thinking actually about the roadmap to expand X from where you see it today to where you see it becoming and risks, challenges and also opportunities of that including AI and how you see that that transition well along lines of what I was saying earlier, the it's it's really true kind of create a group mind or collective consciousness where every person is essentially a part
of that group minor electical and is kind of reporting information to the system, consuming information, giving their opinion on it. And you can just think about like a giant brain basically, And you know, I posted I think a few years ago that a neuron doesn't feel like it's it doesn't know it's a neuron, So right, Uh, you know, individuals on the system. Obviously you feel like an individual, but actually you are actually part of a
collective sort of group mind. And and then you know, see if they say, well, what makes it a better or worse? You know, collective consciousness, it's it's well ups these feed is very important. How fast is information being transmitted? How is is that information is the most interesting information being propagated to the the right other people as quickly as possible. You know, how much noise is in the system. Noise would be information that is
either not interesting. Uh, obviously spam, scams, actual misinformation. But you know that that that that term is overused, but just say, like just say information that that that that is deviates from the truth meaningfully, because
there's always this question of what is the truth? You know, and it's like there's an old sort of police saying, uh, you know, for any given crime, there are at least three stories, the victim, the perpetrator in the truth, right, you know, or you know, uh, the well that coursa movie Rassamon where they the same event happens and you
see that perceived completely differently by four different people. So but nonetheless, one can still aspire to the truth and have the least aspire to have the least amount of error. So so that's that's really Uh, that's the main thing is is like how do we get as many people as possible participating in providing information that's accurate correcting information that is not accurate. And just if you think of it, sort of like it from an information theory standpoint, this is
like, I think the right way to think about it. Think about it
from an information theory standpoint. You want to have what would make for the most effective group mind or collective consciousness, and it's it's like all the neurons all communicating as quickly as possible with the lowest signles noise, and yeah, and there do you think you need to enable users to put like skin in the game behind their messages in a more frictionless way, as in, if I'm like within capital markets, I can bet I can put capital to work,
right, and I stand to lose it if I'm wrong. Uh, And the information space and X is it's kind of like a survival of the fittest, but kind of like the marginal energy needed to put in for an individual tweet, I can't really change that or an individual post? Is that like a direction to go. You mean, like when you put something assign sort of a some amount of your credits effectively you're yeah, I mean within prediction. Prediction markets work because people are able to bet on one thing versus
another. Like conceptually, if I'm right about something, if the truth, if I if I get some kind of like you know, more than just reputational cruel, but capital cruel for being correct about something on X. Is that a way to kind of increase essentially effective signal to noise within the network. Do you have a suggestion for how that might be implemented? I mean, conceptually, you're the fact that I can advertise on X, like I can promote a tweet, you know, is in some ways in instant atiation
of that. But there's no mechanism by which I effectively lose for being wrong, or maybe within the distribution algorithm there is, but it just seems very kind of like a loose kind of connection between whether or not I'm contributing positively to the network and whether or not the network actually rewards me in some way, either financially or otherwise for contributing positively. Well, I mean, we are paying creators for you know, for people who are posting on the system
where that post is interesting and gets a lot of views. So that's that's one way in which people are occurring value. If you if you post something that's boring around uninteresting then just or wrong whatever you peraps will get less views and thus earn less. You know, there's a there is this like very challenging problem of of bots and trolls, which is I think, I mean just tackling that and I think we've made great strides, but just a long
way to go. That is the biggest source of noise is because the fundamental problem you have right now is that it's it's quite easy to pass the are you a human test? You know, even if I mean basically open source AI at this point can pass are you a human test? Spatter but I think out than most humans m hmm, so uh, and that's only going to become more widely available. So you know you have to I think biased that the network too, ah have basically raised the cost of manipulation and raise
the cost of bots and trolls. You cannot completely get rid of them, this is not possible, but you can make it much harder and much more expensive, Like I mean having say a drug enforcement agency like the or any kind of if making drugs legal does it doesn't make the drugs disappear, It just makes them more expensive. So you know, sometimes there's a false dipot
of me of like, well, it's all or nothing. No, you just you have to do things that that dramatically increase the cost of noise in the system so that somebody can't spoil up one hundred thousand or a million bots in a day and and then minigulate the system. So this is why the you know, we've moved to sort of a subscription, there's at least a small monthly payment, even even a small amount, like if like three dollars a month is or so some some small amount, it's still several orders of
magnitude. If it raises the cost of bots by several orders of magnitude, maybe by one thousand or ten thousand, so uh, and then it's not just the cost, it's not just the dollar amount. But then you effectively piggyback on the payment system, so payment authentication. So it's just it's just hard to find more credit cards to misuse that like there's a natural cost in
the black market for credit cards that work. So so just just biasing things to where the subscribers, effectively for premium users content is elevated above that of bought amplified content is I think a very big deal. Sorry, And my prediction actually is that any given social network that does not move in this direction will be swarmed with bots and and will simply be overwhelmed. You know, I have an experience with that. We all of a sudden, I guess
bots were taking over. And this was not on Twitter but on or on X but on Instagram and Facebook. I mean, it was just all over the place. So we've already experienced attacks like that. Can we stay on the X platform as a topic, elon, but maybe take us a little bit more into the future about this super app opportunity. Will you become a financial platform? Identification is and we're already seeing you're still tipping I think on X. But are you going to are you going to turn into a financial
platform, which is where you started your entrepreneurial journey many years ago? Is this still is this still on the drawing board? Yeah? Absolutely, We're just waiting for the final approvals to come through for the money transmitter licenses. Has just taken longer than expected to get the money transmitter licenses. Yes, so I did see you have fifteen or so now or is it more? I think we actually have a majority of the states. Oh, I've been
for this, but it's it's irrelevant until California and New Yorker brewers. I see, I see, And are there any showstoppers or it's just bureaucracy. It's just I mean, really just I guess bureaucracy. You know the thing. Things were obviously quite chaotic, especially for the first few months, so
you know, it's not entirely the fault. We were bit late in submitting our you know, money transmitter licenses, and I essentially thought I thought we had done it, but we had not done it until around the middle of this year. So I think we'll probably get our approvals early next year, and so I would expect payments to roll out. I would be surprised if we aren't if it takes us longer than the middle of next year to roll out payments. So I'm not aware of any any showstoppers. Is just kind
of working through the system. Yeah, that'll be exciting, if you don't mind, Elan, I'd like to actually make an announcement on X since you know, we learned in the market that once once you say something on exit,
it actually becomes public information from the SEC's point of view. We've seen that tested comes and so I just wanted to announce that we're pretty excited that for the first time, beginning in January, our venture fund will be available on so far right now, if you want to buy our venture fund,
the Titan app is the way to go. That's an Andresen Horoitz funded company and they've been great, but we are expanding and you know, we'd love again in this movement towards democratization of VC if any other platforms want to participate in this movement. You know, we're not exclusive, so and we're very
excited about the possibilities. So thank you for letting me do that. And it's also a big part of bringing the broader base of a huge number of non accredited investors whould love to enter companies like your Zealand of course, and we are already with the Ark Venture Fund in SpaceX and X, and we'd love to do others and really allowing you know, obviously your companies are extremely well funded, but for many companies that don't have access to capital necessarily at
the scale you've built without going public. So we think that's a really exciting potential for companies to stay private for longer. And really that sounds great. Yeah, it's really really cool. I mean, the burden of being a poly company really has increased over time such that it has it's somewhat persuaded a lot of companies from being public, and I really frankly would recommend companies don't
go public unless they absolutely have to. So, yeah, do you think do you think that going back to like the Model three ramp, when you had customers and shareholders going out and facilitating delivery of vehicles, do you think that could have happened without people having like skin in the game in the same way. Yeah. Absolutely, Most most of the people who help we're not
shoulders. That's interesting. I mean that I don't know, you know, Elon, so many people have come up to me and all of us over the years because we were out there, you know, pounding the table, uh for Tesla against you know, against the traditional financial world, and they they read our research on Tesla and and bought into it. And so many people have come up and said thank you for doing that research, alerting us to the opportunities. What's happened to the public markets, Elon is I think
is I think they're kind of broken. I agree with you. I think part of it is regulatory, but part of it is the way the traditional financial world works. And I saw, I've seen this time and again, is if a company is not in a broad based benchmark, then then financial analysts and portfolio managers very often say, okay, not relevant, not relevant to me. Not in an index. I'm not competing against it. That's
how broken it is. Instead of focusing on the future, and you know which companies are going to be transformative and are going to scale brilliantly, they're very nicely situated in the past, you know, in stocks that are where they are in benchmarks because of past performance. That's the other thing that's happened here. Sure, but it's important we changed that. Elon and Tesla,
it has been a change maker in that regard. Sure, you didn't get into an index because of the way they construct them until Tesla was five hundred billion dollars, So a lot of it was pretty crazy. You know, how many more, how many companies are bigger than that. You know, it's just crazy, but you did, you made it, and you opened people's eyes. And we're trying to change this shift away from passive back to
active so that there is an efficient allocation of capital. Yeah, you're touching on a very important point, which is that I think the percentage of the market that is passive is simply is too great at this point. So at the end of the day, somebody actually has to make an active decision that the passive investors are riding on the decisions of the active investors. And so the passive passive you know, investments like index funds whatnot, are they're like
a an They're just that they're an amplifier. It's like that, you know, like an electric guitar app or something. So, but but you don't want that amplifier gain to be too high or you get essentially massive movements of the stock based on the decisions of maybe four or five active major stock pickers. Well, you know, actually it's it's it's a little more complicated.
So if you if you well, yeah, if you if you look, if you were in a risk off market, a bear market like we were in twenty two, what actually happens is these managers are very fearful and they just get closer and closer to their benchmarks, and they sell the stocks that the kind of stocks that we're invested in because we're completely active, we don't we're benchmark agnostic. We just we just don't even look at them. We're all about the future. So that's in a risk of market, it punishes
stocks that are not in indexes more than otherwise would be the case. And then to your point, it rewards stocks that you know, in a risk one period that that that are growing very quickly like yours. And as you say, yes, there's a pylon effect. If they get into a benchmark, now everybody has to consider them. So it's really it's it's a really
distorted way of that. The public equity markets have evolved. Yeah, I mean essentially getting into any kind of index will pass up fund well I think increase the volatility significantly because you know, just now it's amplified that stock's not amplified by by the passive. So you know, and I think Bogo was was it was a good idea to create, you know, bank guard and passives, but it's gone. It's just gone too far it has, so you just don't want to have the amplify sort of the the amp is turned
up too high, there's a way to think of it. So there should be more more active and less less passive. Totally agree and absolutely And the other thing that's happening, I didn't know where we're going to go here, elon. But the other thing that really is gripping the markets is you know, seventy five percent plus UH of training every day is algorithmic, and we see they're very simple algorithms. You know, in a bear market, okay, do they have cash? Are they burning cash? And and those two
variables will will dominate the stock action. So yeah, we've watched this over the last three years. It's a very simplistic way of managing money, and I really do think it has led to the most massive miss allocation of capital in history. A lot more private companies should be public, but we understand why they don't go public because of the kind of behavior you're subjected to.
And now you know all about it, right, yeah, I mean the regulatory burden of being public is way too high, and then the legal burden of being public is also way too high. So if you're public, you're just going to be sued NonStop by these class action law firms with their fake plaintiffs, as is the case with Tesla. We're just you know, constantly being sued by you know, I said what the media will portray as a member of the class, but in fact we're just being sued by class action
law firms with with puppets like that drives me crazy. It happens, you know, it's happening. But the problem that we're talking about here is non accredited investors have not been invited to the venture capital party because they don't make enough money or they are they're not wealthy enough, which we think is quite a regressive tax. Yes, absolutely, I fully agree. That's why we're democratizing venture capital by not taking a carry ourselves so that we can offer our
fund for as little as five hundred dollars to anyone anyone. That sounds great, Well, I think more people should take you up on that. Yeah, there is. I mean, most most of the the vast majority of
companies are obviously private, they're not public. Yes, And and you're right that that it is somewhat of a regressive tax that makes it difficult for the average citizen to participate in the outside of those companies, because once you go i think above twenty five hundred shareholders, non employee shareholders, then you're forced to go public. So the reason that SpaceX cannot simply offer stock to anyone who wants to own it is because of that twenty five hundred direct shareholder limit.
Right, So do you think do you think that within SpaceX are just thinking about Tesla versus SpaceX? Do you think you've been enabled to take more appropriate risks within SpaceX than you have within Tesla because of the public versus private Absolutely. I mean at SpaceX, we never think about what the quarter. We never think about it, and we don't think, we don't think about
the stock price. So you know, there's there's a lot of pressure, like an immense pressure on a public company to not have a bad quarter. So this can act actually result in a less efficient operation where you're going to great lengths at the end of a quarter to not disappoint people. And you
know that's just that's just how it goes. So uh and and then you know you've also got a lot sort of a long term challenge with public markets where a lot of the analysts following companies have a time horizon that is maybe only a year or two. It's you know, rarely more than a few years. So and so they literally don't care because then their incentive structure is a short term. They do not care about what your long term outcome will
be because their careers dependent on how you do in the short term. Elon, you have been great at I think standing up to short term oriented shareholders. That's one of the scores in our scoring system as we're evaluating companies. Is this a visionary management and will they stand up to short term shareholders who want their profits now, their dividends, their share repurchases, Will they invest aggressively enough in the future. And I think you've done a great job.
Well, thank you and credit to the test the team as well. So but that that said, we at Tesla, we do go to great lengths to ensure that our quarter is good as that that we don't disappoint because it's not so much about the it's just that we feel like we have a sort of you know, moral obligation too. You know, I don't know that to not have a bad quarter and disappoint people. So we you know, the number of New Year's Eves that I've spent in delivery centers is like,
I don't know of six. I don't know seven. I don't know I blast camp how many times I was in I was delivering forest until like basically, but not on Year's Eve personally. So, you know, has it done any Let me just ask the question the other way, SpaceX. You you feel like you have more degrees of freedom being public. Has it done
anything positive for you? For Tesla? I mean, well, it did allow us to clean up our capital structure, which was overly complex as a private company and have a single class of common so were really getting things were getting quite unwieldy with the private company capital structure. There was obviously the capital availability in the public markets, which is a lot more than the private markets.
And a car company is capital intensive, so I guess access to Ladge has capital and cleaning up what had become an extremely complex your private company share structure were two, you know, major things. Certainly, it was also good to give access to the company stock to a small shareholders, you know, so those are those are good things, but you know, I think
it's also been a tremendous distraction as well on the downside. So and you know, there's just a lot of a lot of overhead just there's more time that's required to manage a public company than a private company. So in the past you've talked about potentially I guess listing Starlank or doing something on the space X within the public capital markets. But do you think that that's actually not something that you need to do or anticipate doing across all of your companies outside
of Tesla. At this point, I don't think it's worth going public and ntil you have maybe an extremely stable and predictable revenue stream. So if your cash flows are extremely stable and predictable at that point, going public is less of an issue because you know, you're just not going to have these big
gyrations. So you know, isn't that ironic? Like the point of the equity markets is to is to provide like perpetual capital for capital intensive businesses, right, And what you're describing as a business that actually doesn't really need equity capital necessarily, you could you could debt fund it to some degree if you have very stable cash flows, right, I mean I can equity or debt
fund just about anything. At this point, you know, the You know, it's worth noting that in all my old companies, across all the years, I've never lost money for an investor even once, and this is now over one hundred financing rounds. Now, of course I cannot stop people from selling when they should not sell, but I have never driven them to a
bad outcome. So that's a pretty good betting average. And obviously, when you've treated capital well, then capital if it treats you well in turn, and so you know, it's it's basically very easy for me to raise almost any amount of capital. Frankly, So now, of course I need to
make sure that traffic stays intact and not get complacent or entitled. But you know, obviously I do not have a need to to raise capital, and in fact a lot of in most cases I don't really need even for say like Boring Company or Neural Link. I mean, I can funded myself entirely. But I think it is good to have other investors. Why why why even bother with with outside shareholders at all? It would be simpler to you could take whatever risk you want without having to answer to anybody. Well,
I do take a lot of risks your way. I don't know, I think it's I think it's good to have I don't know, I think it's good. It's good to have other investors. I mean, I think that you know, each investor you ad is an ally it's good to have more allies. I think it also, you know, establishes that I'm not delusional in the valuation of the companies. So if if others are prepared to invest at a particular value, then then then you know, I'm not the sole
just decider of what the value of the company is. Others are deciding what the value of the companies are. You know, it's it's sort of an outside assessment of the value of the company. And and that you know, there is also a need to uh, you know, provide liquidity so uh to to to people at the company. So I believe in providing stock to
the people of the company, the employees and creators of the company. It's important to provide them stock to have the incentive be aligned with the company outcome and uh and then you know, you the various points want to gain liquidity so that you you want to then establish an outside valuation. And you know, so there's not it's not just me deciding it and enable liquidity for those who've been awarded stock and options at the companies, and and and generally been
my approach to award everyone at the company stuff. You know, A tells that we've awarded. We awarded everyone stock you no matter how junior they were. So that actually obviously made a lot of people millionaires. I think I think Teslam may have created more employee millionaires than any company in history. Yeah, so I would say, like, if there's not a company that's done has created more employee millionaires than Tela. You know, there's it's maybe there's
one, maybe it's there's one or two others. But but really the SURE tests around one hundred and forty thousand people, and you know, I think I think we might be number one. I think I think you are. So I'm conscious of time here and thank you so much. Elon. We Frank Downing, our director of research on Next Generation Internet, asked Grok, what questions do people want? Kathy Wood to ask Elon Musk to Okay, basis, and we would be remiss if we didn't, if we didn't summarize
this first and then let you take it where you'd like it. And it basically said, it seems that this is Grock talking. Seems that people are even here about the latest developments and AI's I mean, in Tesla's AI technologies we definitely are, such as FSD twelve and the next generation platform for Robotaxi. They're also interested in learning more about the company's plans for the Optimist project. Additionally, there is a lot of curiosity surrounding Elon Musk's thought on the
AI space, as well as his take on the future of bitcoin. I guess that was a little repetitive AI there, but these topics are sure to spark some engaging discussions. That's that's Grock for you. Okay, well Crok, that's pretty good. Yeah, that's pretty good. So AI and and I do. I do have more time than you know, if you would like to go alonger longer than fifteen minutes, we can go alonger than fifteen minutes, right, I mean trying to still my thoughts here on AI,
because I could really talk four hours on AI. You know, we both Charlie and Brett are steeped in it, so is Frank and of course Tasha, she's done our work on autonomous but one of the one of the things we've been very curious about is open source versus closed AI? And I don't know if you've seen I don't know if you've seen the chart that Frank and
Joseph did on our team, but they they drew a line. They basically calculated performance improvements in both the closed closed or private AI companies and models large language models, and then the open ones. And open is behind closed, but the steep the performance is improving at a steeper rate than closed. Do you have any thoughts about that and about open versus closed generally when it comes to AI. Sure, well, I mean, I think a lot of
people know that. You know, I was instrumental in the creation of Opening I and the impact. I came up with the name of the Opening open I means open source, yes, and thought it as an open source nonprofit And the reason I wanted to create it was to create establish a counterweight to Google deep Mind, because it was a unipolar world at that point. It was, you know, Google deep Mind had probably two thirsd of more of
the top AI talent and of course fast computing and financial resources. And at the time I was close friends with Larry Page and it did not seem to me that he was taking AI safety seriously. So I felt there needed to be some, like I said, some counterweights, some competitor to sort of the Google Deep Mind situation. So prankically instrumental in Crain, the company was recruiting Iliosiskaer, which was a back and forth thing where actually Eli have changed
his mind a few times and ultimately decided to come to Opening Eye. And uh so I won that recruiting battle, and that is actually what caused Larry Page to stop being friends with me. Frankly so, but now ironically, because fate loves irony, Opening Eye is a super closed source and and for maximum profit it's it should be renamed closed for maximum profit AI, it won't be more accurate. So because that's that's you know, it's literally the polar
opposite of what of how it started. I guess I'm I generally have a bias in favor of open source, and you can see that certainly with the X platform, where we've open sourced the algorithm U and for for example, for community notes, we open source not just the algorithm, but all the data as well, so you can see exactly how a note was created, can be ordered by third parties. There's no there's no mystery, nothing hidden at all, I think. So that's one of that seems to be one
of the confusing things about open source as pertains to large language models. It's it's it's not as simple, and I think this has been lost in some of the debate as just open sourcing the code. It's open sources the shades of gray here of course, with parameter, weights, data, there's there's all of that spectrum, and I think that's been maybe lost from some of the debate. So it's great to hear, Yeah, there's there's actually a
very little code, very little actual traditional lines of software. Certainly at the at the first level, there's there's very little. It's a remarkably tiny number of lines of code. So it's it's just these giant, you know, waste files and you know what your hyperparameter you know, numbers are and it's
basically a giant Comma separated value file. So I was find amusing to contemplate that perhaps our digital guard will be a CSP file, you know, like and and then you make a you see fee file that has maybe more weights and the weights are better, and then you're pretty much delete the old one. So just the AI is evolving and deleting its prior self constantly, So we're going to worship a giant tel file essentially. That's pretty kind of I mean, you need a very big Yeah, it's a lot of cells,
but it's really just a bunch of numbers. And then those numbers are they're getting smaller in magnitude too, you know, going from f P sixteen to fp F thirty two to P sixteen to in sixteen to into eight and now it looks like things are training towards mostly into four, so they're not particularly large numbers. Yeah. Yeah, I'm not sure if I'm answering, I'm gonna asking a question, but I mean, I think it's true that closed source is not that far, like from a time standpoint, not that far
ahead of of a of a source. But let's say, and if you assume open sources, do you have six months because of the immense rate of improvement of AI, that's six months is a is actually a massive amount of time, I mean, or at least the delta in an exponentially improving situation, six months, Well, I think feel like an eternity. So I think closed will outperform open by a meaningful amount at any given point in time.
And given the Yeah, I'm just gonna say, given the questions we were talking about before about truth and not truth, and do you think in ten years' time a I will have been a net truth improver or detractor from where we are today, I think it will be, well speaking for at least for Groark, I think it will be a significant truth improver. That
that is the three. Our goal is to be maximum truth seeking, maximally curious, minimizing the the error between between perceived reality and describe reality and actual reality, and always acknowledging the error, not being too confident about it. So I and I think there will be a competition for truth, and you will go. People will tend towards the one that they think is most accurate.
So and if there's at least one AI that is aiming for maximum accuracy, I think it pushes all of the AI is to aim for maximum accuracy, just as with with the X platform FK twitters. As you know, X pushes for maximum truth and accuracy. It's not forces the hand of others.
They the others now also have to do that. Right, The truth the truth arms race among the cs fees and is Yeah, is one of the one of our thesis I think with our is that Teesla is one of the most undervalued AI companies there is because of the insane amount of data you've got on all or you know, to feed into autonomous I don't know if there's any commentary on that because I think, you know, obviously, with the rise of these l M companies which are by and large working off essentially
available data that is not proprietary, the benefits coming to the companies like Teesla that understand how to use the benefits but do have these enormous propriety data pools, seems like that's going to be the next frontier. Yeah, I think that's accurate, an accurate description. It is one of the leading A companies in the world, and with respect to real world AI, it is obviously, by fear and away the leader. So you know, the what large
language model with phrase long large language model l M is massively overused. But what what I do see happening is somewhat of a convergence towards intelligence. You know, it's just like, really to make full self driving work, you kind of need baby a g I in the car because you need to understand reality and is messy and complicated, and just as as a side effect, the car AI has to be able to read, for example, has to be able to read read read aubitrary science as a little just a little side
effect of understanding reality in every language. So you know, I think that everything is coming down to, you know, different layers of transformers and diffusion, and then how you put together the transformers and in diffusion. That's that's what That's what I made. That that's somewhat niche AI joke on the X platform. Who do you think will be present in twenty thirty two? Transformers
or diffusion? Do you think that? Do you think that switching to full stack AI for for Tesla's full self driving reduces the kind of forecast error for you in terms of when the problem will be solved as in you famously have you know, said it's a your way for a few years now. Do you think that like actually line of sight wherever it ends up, you'll have a better line of sight on when you're going to cross a particular threshold of
performance where it can go without human intervention. Yeah, I mean the cars are really incredibly good at driving itself. So now, especially if you say, like okay, drive in California, which is you know, both generally easy driving because you don't have heavy rain and snow and that kind of thing in most parts of California, and tails the engineering is primarily in California,
so you're gonna get it's gonna overfit for solving California. But if you're just driving to stay around Palo Alto, the probability that you'll need an intervention at this point is incredibly low. In fact, even if you're driving through San Francisco, the probably intervention at this point is very low. So we're really just going through a march of nines, Like how many nines of reliability do you need before somebody does not need to monitor the system? You know,
it's so interesting GM basically shutting down Cruise. Tasha has done the work on safety and it seems that Tesla with FSDV has an accidents once every three point two million miles. At Tesla without FSD six hundred thousand miles. The average vehicle on the road I think this is surface streets one hundred and ninety thousand, and Cruz was forty thousand, so there really was a safety issue there.
Do you worry that it has potentially set back regulators, you know, from consider ring autonomous transportation or is this data, given that accidents on the streets have gone up in the last ten years fairly dramatically actually because it texted, do you think do you think that regulators are going to look at the data which, I mean, we've done the research, Tasha's do other research
on this and is pretty compelling. Well, you know, our regulator in the US is the End Enforcement Division of NITSA, for whom I actually have a lot of respect. I think those guys are they really have I mean, they're they're quite I think actually, in my experience thus far, have
been quite sensible. You know that that that doesn't mean that they're on't silly things that happen from time to time, but they've really been quite sensible because they see the actual truth of the accidents, and they see the fact that they're on the order of forty thousand people killed every year in motivical accidents, and so they actually do they do care about the safety statistics, and they
do recognize that there's always going to be some risk with cars. Uh, they're well aware of the fact that that our cars are much safer than other vehicles. So you know, we really I mean, there's been a few things where, you know, maybe we have had some disagreements, but you know, like like for example, coming to an absolute full stop at stop streets even when the you know, it's very clear there are no cars anywhere
in sight that could possibly cause an impact. No, no, no cars, no pedestrians, completely clear and actually almost no humans stop at stop streets a stop signs. Almost no humans actually come to a full stop that typically let me think they came to full stop, but typically they'll be going at least a few miles an hour, so that you know, they said, well, the Lord does say that you have to stop at a stop street.
Well even though no, almost no humans do. So that actually created a bit of a challenge for us because we had to select the rare cases were from the fleet where humans actually stopped at stop streets at stop scigns, so and then actually get our QA team to stop at stop streets and then overfit the stopping stopping at stop signs in order to get the car to stop at stop science. Because it was quite a bit behave like a sort of
a good, normal human driver who does not stop at stuff signs. So, you know, we had a disagreement there on it, but we ultimately, you know, have made the car stop at stop signs, even though it's a lit annoying. So but you know, overwhelmingly, you know, that's one of the things in the media will try to create this that that I'm some sort of lawbreaking maverick who just does what he wants and doesn't care
about legal matters. This is actually not true. Of the literally millions of laws that I am subject to in my company's the subject to there are a handful over the years that we've disagreed with almost but the vast majority ninety nine point I don't know, nine percent of laws and regulations we do a buy bine and we do agree with, well, maybe maybe we don't agree with. We certainly a buy bye. You know, there's once in a while
the gout disagreement, but it's it's really minor. And but if you sum up the disagreements across over the you know, twenty years, it can just sound like a lot. But but in fact, my companies are incredibly low abiding. So that's the that's the that's truth of it. Anyway, I think I think it'll be I think it'll be fine from a regulatory standpoint.
When we can show that there's even completely without supervision, there is a massive statistical case for self driving being actually safer than if someone had their hands on the wheel, or was even potentially having their hands in wheel, then I think the regulators will accept that. You know, it's been really interesting as a we were watching the breakthroughs as everybody has in AI, and we had agreed with you. Our original our original research had autonomous mobility in pretty much
full force. This was our original research by now. But if we didn't have the breaks truths in a I that that we've seen, particularly transformer architecture, it wouldn't have been possible, right, But we didn't know that. Is that how you're viewing it now? Well, it's certainly true that transformers are transformational. Yes, so, uh, you know, pretty much everyone's using transformers, and it's really just how many transformers. What kind of transformers
are you using? Order aggressive transformers which are very memory bound with intensive you know, there's but you I think you really I'm not sure you can really do AI without transformers in a meaningful way. Diffusion is also very important. So I mean it just really looks like a GI is some combination of transformers
and diffusion. That's interesting. Does diffusion help elon and the things that transformers are necessarily not necessarily that good at yet, like planning and remembering rather than sort of a current state. Uh, My, transformers are important for all aspects of AI. Yeah, I mean, computers are very good at remembering things. Your phone remembers the video that you took down to the last pixel, whereas you know, most humans cannot remember who they met last week.
So memory is the easiest. I mean, we were already outsourced memory to computers in that Like you say, how much of human knowledge is in digital form versus in I contained in human neurons. It's overwhelmingly in silicon rather than biological neurons, right, So I mean, and there's there's I mean, I think it's always you know, it's good to think of. Like I
tried to consider one of the most fundamental ratios. This is like in physics, you always thinking about trying to looking at fundamental ratios and some of the you know, one of the fundamental ratios is the ratio of digital to biological compute just you know, just just in rural compute and how much, and the ratio of digital memory to biological memory. So you know, at what point it's that's like I think at this point, I think we're probably over
ninety nine percent of all memory is digital as opposed to biological. So you've got over I think over one hundred digital to biological ratio, and memory at this point trending towards a thousand, you know, and many or is married to beyond that. Then then you've got the digital biological compute ratio. And since the number of humans is more or less constant, I'm worried about it. You know, humans declining quite significantly in the years to come because the
birth rate is so low. But you know, so so human human computer is more or less it looks like a flat line versus time, whereas the digital compute is exponential, right, And you know, at some point it's that that will also be above one hundred, meaning more than ninety nine percent of all compute will be digital instead of biological. Right, And if we're not there already, we will be within a year or two. Although it's amazing how much data biology can store. I reckon, I believe it.
It's estimated that a gram of dry DNA can store between four and five hundred exabytes. So maybe this bill things to learn from biology. But yes, incredible the pace of change. Yeah, I mean, if you encode memories in DNA like a ticker tape, then the DNA memory potential is amounts. But I'm not sure that's actually what's happening, or if it is, it's
I don't know. I'm not sure why my memory is so terrible. But actually, I mean your memory in terms of the raw details, like you have an amazing search function, right, it's kind of like yeah, well for for any I mean I would argue kind of in some ways like the transformer architecture enables effective search of a very very broad amount of data, and or that's or it's like data compression. It seems like the yes, we have there's many more like data bytes and coded are gigabytes and coded and disk.
But but actually being able to effectively search that space is pretty still primitive with compute, at least at large scale relative to humans ability to access information. I mean, it's still some things that humans be better than computers. I mean, if you say, like computers that have not yet discovered any fundamental physics, but humans have discovered a lot of fundamental physics. The computers have not yet invented a useful technology. Humans have invented many useful, useful
technologies. So you know, do you think that do you ascribe to the notion that, like you, essentially training AI systems on language is not enough and that you have to have some kind of embodied source of data, like through an optimist robot to actually get kind of the raw learning in that AI system would need to understand fundamental physics. Yeah, so that's what I think is coming. I think I think what's coming is is a understanding fundamental physics
and and AI inventing new technologies. It definitely definitely feels like rather than even though some things now apparently past the cheering test, most importantly pussing the money penny test, as in kind of a I actually pay bills, do expense reports to the extent James bonded those, and actually pay parking clients and things like that. That would actually be a very good use of AI that I think would have a lot of users immediately and maybe the the Billy Connolly test
of Cannon a I actually be consistently funny. Those feel like Grok is pretty funny. That's fair. I think you know, one of our goals for Grock is to be the funniest AI. So I mean, if you ask Rock to provide a vulgar roast, it's really good. And speaking of Groc to not to not let down our future AI overlords. The final question on the GROC summary that that that Kathy touched on was the future of bitcoin. Not sure if we want to touch on that or not, whether that's out.
Yeah, that that and and then just before I don't know if we're wrapping up here, but I'd love to talk about bitcoin and your your view of crypto assets, and then maybe back into kind of tying things up with convergences among technologies. You mentioned that a little earlier Elon and the impact ultimately of all of this on economic growth longer term, you know the surprises that
might come from there. But first, first bitcoin, okay, sure, what's the question regarding well, you know, there's when we first when you put it or Tesla put it on its balance sheet, there was I remember afterwards, there was this backlash in terms of its economic impact, all of the energy usage and so forth. And then and then as part of the seminar that we did that you participated in elon, we basically we and block had come up with this notion that wait, you put uh, bitcoin mining
into a utility ecosystem. Uh, so that you know, if if there's a storage unit and you know, the the intermittent energy, you know, the storage unit's full, the sun is still shining, the excess power goes over to bitcoin, and uh, and you can mint bitcoin and overbuild solar and wind and renewables and all of that. So so that that that argument against bitcoin, and Larry Think himself used it quite vociferously for a long time
until until recently that that is going away. What do you think about bitcoin's potential impact on the financial system, the monetary monetary systeminancial services generally. Well, I have to say I don't spend a lot of time thinking about cryptocurrency, hardly, any hardly any at all. I I have thought for a long time about money and the you know the nature of money, what is
money? And you know it's really a database for resource allocation? Is the way to think about money in my view, So now field currency is actually fine as a data based for resource allocation. If you have a predictable money supply and it doesn't, you know, just get inflator or deflated too much. Rules based, it's rules based, and then and then, and provided government does not too much abuse the privilege to create more money. You know,
some amount of abuse is almost is guaranteed to happen. But but you know you can go too far. So uh, you know, the temptation over the ages to debase money is I think it goes back to probably the ancient Sumerians, you know. But if as at the point which money was invented in any form, including in gold, there was there was the unavoidable temptation to debase the money supply. So so then you think of any given money system again I sort of applying information theory to a money problem. Just
think of it like it's a it's an information system. You want to minimize noise, minimize latency, minimized packet loss, and and so any like like inflation would be adding noise to the system. If if the if, the transaction rate, if if the if what it takes to concluded transaction is a long time that as latency to the system of fraud is kind of like packet
loss. Uh, you know, it's it's you know, so, so I guess I kind of think of money like like I think of information moving on a on a network, uh, bandwidth, latency, jutter, which is the variants in latency, packet loss, those fundamental elements. Yeah, it's been interesting to watch how human beings in this case that fed you know, the words they say, whip around markets and there's just something not right about that. I mean, that's that's my point of view. I think
our point of view certainly on on the crypto team. And you know Art Laffer, who was my professor in school, he's supply side you know, Austrian School of economics. You know, when he first he collaborated on our first bitcoin paper in two thousand and fifteen, and after he got through reading it, he said, you know, I've been waiting for this since they closed the gold window in nineteen seventy one. I've been waiting for a rules
a new rules based global monetary system. And I think that's where our optimism comes from. This is truly rules based and so he's gotten more and more excited about it the more he's learned about it. So, you know,
anyway back to convergence though, and you're you're the maestro here. You know, when I think of when we think of, you know, autonomous taxi platforms, rubotaxi networks and so forth, you know that that's the convergence of three of the major platforms around which we have centered our research, robotics, energy storage, and artificial intelligence. Each one of those technologies, you know, basically gearing up for or in the in the sweet spot of a of
the S curve. And I sort of think it of S curves feeding S curves and creating the potential for explosive growth that no one is expecting. And and Brett has just written a paper it should come out in the next few
weeks around this topic. I just want to get your thoughts about that, and Brett, if you wanted to ask any questions specifically about that, but that the bottom line from an economics point of view is we could see you know, very surprising up uptick not just uptick, a step function up in economic a real economic growth if these technologies are as big as we think they are. Yeah, absolutely, Well, I mean the real economy is not
money, it's goods and services. So you know, I was saying earlier, money is really just the database for resource allocation, and you know it's but if they're no resources to allocate, or if the actual goods and services output have is fixed, then you really I just try to allocate that that same pie but more efficiently. But it's really not only as good as as growing the pie, so growing the the the output of goods and services.
You know, productivity is really the thing that leads to prosperity. And obviously with with robotics and AI, I think digital medicine through a synthetic RNA, and you know, I think these things are what will just massively improve productivity. You know, just if you've got if you take the car as an example, and I think you understand this quite well, although not many people
do that. You know, if you've got to say a passenger car, it will typically see ten to twelve hours of usage, like maybe one and a half hours a day over the course of seven days, but there are one hundred there are one hundred and sixty eight hours in a week, so it's really used for a very small percentage of the week normally, and then
you've got to pocket somewhere as well. So you've got parking costs, storage costs, maintenance costs, and you know all these these these costs associate with the car, and you know you're at five to ten percent of asset utilization for a car, whereas if you've got an autonomous vehicle, that same car that costs basically about the same could now I think, be used as a
rough approximation for about a third of the hours of the week. If you say like productive hours, and this is I think that's a I think that's a conservative, but I think it's not far wrong. So if you say, like it goes from say ten hours a week to fifty hours a week out of one hundred and sixty eight of useful hours, that that I think is not it's not going to be exactly right, but I don't think it's far wrong. You now have the same asset being able to having five times
the utility m hm. So that is that is that is a such a staggering leap of productivity, you know, And and if TESS is able to do as as I think we will be able to, which is to upgrade the fleet to make it autonomous will be the biggest step change in asset value in history. I think overnight we we agree, we agree I'm converted here,
and that's why I prefaced it by I realize I'm preashing converted. But you're also you're also underestimating the utility uplift because that ten hours that the car is driving a week, somebody is not being paid to drive it, mostly right, but but they're devoting their valuable brain to doing it. As then kind of it's actually there's the human labor loss that that accompanies that as well, and so freeing up those hours is actually I think on Tasha's work it's
as meaningful, you know as the capital utilization benefit. Absolutely, And I think you've also predicted a massive increase in traffic. Uh, you know, because once you take away the pain of driving, people will will go more places. So so they'll actually be more caught on the road driving more places.
Because if you can sit in the car and you know, be watching a movie or be texting legally, then then then what you know that that's really much less pain than having to navigate Audio's traffic for an hour and a half Yeah, many people miss that. I remember, I just frustrated me that GM and its marketing material and presentation just would say zero congestion, because I think that's larious. Yeah, I would suggest threefold the amount of traffic.
And that's what push pushed us into doing more with drones and you know, delivery of food and parcels with drones and even air taxis because I cannot imagine the commute from JFK into Manhattan being you know, four hours or five five hours or six hours, you know. So, yes, well, fortunately I have a proposed solution to that, which consists of tunnels. Yes, yes, and we're now in Saint Petersburg. If you could build a tunnel from here to Tampa, which is just sand, you're not going to
run into anything, that would be very cool. We can absolutely do that. Yeah, the Born Company has actually made made it has I think at this point, by far the most advanced tunneling machine. The thing that is the biggest inhibitor of Boring Company by far is regulatory approval. It's you know, we're we're in the United States, and particularly in some states like California,
the we are being strangled by regulation. Yeah, and this is an important point to make, which is I think obvious when you think about it, that if if we keep making more rules and regulations and laws every year, and those laws and regulations are immortal, but humans are not immortal, then over time, you know, you'll be like Gulliva where you're tied down by millions of strings and you can't move. It's true, It's true.
That's why your first principles approach to your business is so interesting. I wish we had first principles approach to policy making. And you know, because you're right that the regulations are strangling. The only good news here in this and we've seen it, is other countries want innovation. You know, US has been you know, has been the source of a lot of innovation, but some of our you look at the FAA and drones there there That business has
done much better elsewhere in the world. You know, it's been very frustrated here and now the is starting to play ball because of it. Do you think that that uh, you know, that competitive dynamic or regulatory arbitrage will change things anytime soon, or do we just need someone to come in first principles and kind of figure out a way to convince everyone we need to get
a white sheet of paper and and not start all over. But you know what I mean, I think we need to have a process for garbage collection of rules and regulations that if you don't have some means of deleting rules and regulations and you only ever add them, then that we'll obviously just end up in a situation where everything is illegal. Yes, yes, which is where we where we are, and and uh kind of the bigger and more complex
the state is, like like California, New York. Uh, you just have I guess, first approximation, the number of regulators you have is proportioned to your population, and so other Texas in Florida do do do better in that regard. But there's just so many rules and regulations in California, New York. And if you say, you know La County, you know City of La It's now you've got it's it can take you several months simply to get a permit to change the tiles in your bathroom. Literally. Yeah,
So you know that's I think things are. We we've got to do something here or we're just doomed for this reason. Elon, do you think China is at a competitive advantage, it's command and control. I've heard you, you know, say that they're very tech savvue down to the mayor of every city. Do you think or do you think what has happened over there that
there's a dynamic changing. Maybe they've been they've over leveraged after twenty years of you know, basically buying the dip was the right thing to do until it wasn't. Do you think that it is now entered more of a Japanese style, you know, you know, they have to readjust to a new reality. Or do you think, you know, the regulatory or less regulation over there is going to give them a competitive advantage and innovation is going to you
know, help bail them out. I don't think China is not immune to the same forces that have driven excess regulation and laws in the United States or Europe. They you know, absolutely seen just in the course of our operations in China details in China, we've seen quite a substantial increase in the regulatory button. So you know, the it's a harder to get things done now
than it was ten years ago. That's that's so what I'm saying is I think this is just a natural part of the evolution of any any country is the growth of rules and regulations. Now, in history, the forcing function for cleaning up bad rules and regulations or or sort of archaic rules and things that don't really matter anymore has been war. That has been what has driven has been the clansing function for rules and regulations. So now we would like
to avoid war as ideally we can do this without war. That would be nice. So you know, it would be nice. Has it ever happened? Has it ever happened before? I know you're a student of war and battles and that you really under stand that dynamic. Have we ever cleansed the system without it? I am not aware of. I'm not aware of a situation like that that. Yes. Now, the thing is, in history, wars were very common, so you know that we're in this odd,
odd bit of history where war is quite rare. We're talking about, you know, total population of the world divided by a number of by percentage of the population at war. If you say, look what percentage of US population is actively at war, it's very tiny today compared to any time in history.
The people confuse caring about war from being in war very different. Yeah, I think exposing and I know you did in Ukraine with Starlink, Exposing what's going on is half of the It is half the solution in a sense, right, or or maybe the reason that you know that that we're not going through the horrors of war because you can see it in living color and and and how devastating it is. Yeah, I mean that that is certainly something that is possible. It was not possible in the past, although it
clearly doesn't stop the Ukraine War, right, that's still going on. And you know, I think a lot of a lot of things if they've been social media, so clear they would have happened at all, Like the creation of the United States. If if I was thinking, like if they've been social media at the time of of Roanoke, I think people would have been persuaded from future voyages. M h. It's like we're dying of salvation play
the locals. We've got rifles, disease. That's a good point, very good, but that isn't that is another way to reset the regulatory landscape is kind of exploration, right, I mean, like who knows what. I'm sure there's some set of loss that apply on the moon and potentially Mars, but you know, it's much more difficult to enforce laws from from that long a distance. Yeah. I think ultimately, if there is a self sustaining city on the Moon or Mars, that self sustaining city will achieve autonomy at
some point. So I think it's quite important that we have, extremely important that we become a multi planet civilization and create a self sustaining city, ideally on Mars, because that's quite far away from Earth, and I think if something were to take down Earth civilization, then it would it's less likely to take take out a mar civilization because Earthenware was early in the same quadrant of the Solar system, you know, for six months every two years, so
for a lot of separation. And I think, you know, I think a lot about the permi paradox of where are the aliens? I've seen no evidence of aliens. People always ask me if I've seen any evidence of aliens, and I would immediately shot from the rooftops and from the X platform of any any evidence whatsoever about aliens, I would be you've Yeah, I would be talking about it immediately, and I have. Thus I've seen none.
That's a concern because it means that we perhaps are alone. And you know, and and maybe there were many other civilizations, but they failed to pass the great culture of big of going from one planet to being a multiplanet civilization. So I guess my concern is that we need to keep civilization going at least long enough to be a multiplanet civilization. At that point, I think we stabilize civilization and consciousness and greatly extend the probable life span of civilization and
consciousness as we know it. So, you know, I don't want to have to say this is not some escape patch from Earth, because people are misinterred with this as like some escape patch from Earth. The this and this really doesn't apply to me personally, because you know, I will probably die in I don't know, forty or fifty years, hopefully you know, living
that long. Maybe I don't live even that long. But the civilization can last for tens of thousands of years, perhaps hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of years. So I think it's very important that we make life multiplanetary while the window is open. And this is the first time in the history of Earth that in four and a half billion years of Earth's existence that it has been possible to extend life and consciousness to another planet. So that window is
now open for the first time in four and a half billion years. Now. It may stay open for a long time, but it may also close, and I think so we should just take advantage of the time when the window is open to make life multiplanetary and ensure that the tiny candle of consciousness in a vast darkness continues to continues to burn, does not go out.
Do you think that Starlink you've said kind of the advance the idea that you needed hypersonic travel to basically capitalize colonizing mar is starlink ornof or does that still do you still need that second kind of like business model built on top of space x to make it happen. I think Starlink is enough. I think Starlak is enough. You know that there's there's there's a little diagram on the
Stomic router. It's where people will probably don't notice, but it's it's a homo transfer from Earth to Mars. So if you look on your Starlink router, you'll see that homo transfer diagram. That Starling is the means by which life becomes multiplanetary. So well, you know you're you as you are. You are pioneering us in an amazing way. A lot of a lot of the hope for the future is so much as it of it, you know has has has started with you know, with projects you've started and dreams you
have. And I think the world's a better place. And I'll end where I started. I I know that media clicks, you know, maybe negative is it works, but long run, long run, truth wins out. And uh, you know you're doing amazing things and I think the world will thank you for years and years and years. And maybe just a clue Charnie, oh sorry and click back immune just as a closing thought to build off that, maybe as well, how would you think about inspiring the next generation
of entrepreneurs to do the really big hard things. Does it make most sense to try and do something more consumer internet or something earlier, build up capital and then go and do something very hard or do you think that what would you want to have heard as a as a starting out entrepreneur thinking about that journey and also to inspire the next generation to do great things, including building all the cottage industry no out of things that will need to survive on Mars.
Great question. Well, I actually think that you know, and anyone that has a you know, a company that's providing goods and services is doing great. I mean, it's not that or when you tackle so called you know it quotes great challenges, I would recommend that they don't actually, because the probably of failure is very high. I mean, I think I think just just try to be useful, is my advice. It's very difficult to
be useful. You know. If you see like total area under the curve of how useful you've been to other people, you know, that's cumulatively, that's that's it's very hard to make that a big number, you know. So it's really just trying to be useful and make you great pots and services
that people want and make their lives better. That's it. And you know, as far as you know, encouraging entrepreneurs to start companies, my advice would be that if if you need encouragement to start a company, don't do it, right, right, yeah, because you'll probably I mean, the probably failure is very high, so you really should not. If if you
need encouragment, yeah, yeah, don't do it. Thank you, yeah, thank you so much, Elon. You know, as I think, as it's clear, if you have if you have an idea that will fill an unmet need that the world, you know some of the world really needs, and you have a passion to go for it, then yes, but agreed. The probability of failure is Brett, I think you know. Is it ninety percent? For new businesses eighty ninety percent. Let's stay