You know, what I've said is that we really have here rule of the bureaucracy as opposed to rule of the people democracy.
So in order we want to restore the rule of the people.
And so what that means is reducing the size of the federal government, uh, basically reducing regulation. You know, there's there's a there's a tremendous amount of of overregulation that's happened over time. And this is this isn't an inevitable consequence of a long period of prosperity, is.
That you're going to get more and more rules and regulations.
More laws accumulate over time, and the normal forcing function for getting rid of rules and regulations is war. So it needs to be some kind of existential war where you have to do a reset in order to avoid being defeated in a war. This is literally the throughout history has been the main forcing function for clearing out an accumulation of laws and regulation. In the absence of that, every year you get more laws and regulations, until eventually
everything is illegal and nothing is permitted. And that's sort of the situation we have these days. So the aspiration here there is a reduction in regulation and reduction in government spending such that the economy is able to grow faster. Maybe the economy can grow at four or five percent potentially in terms of real useful goods and services output, and then government spending can be reproduced by about three or four percent of the economy, about maybe a trillion
dollars or more. And the net effect of that would be no inflation from twenty five to twenty twenty six.
So quite remarkable.
And also, if the US government is buying less debt, which I think will be the case, if it's if the depths it drops from two trillion to one trillion, then there will be one trillion.
Less debt the governor's spy, which will drop. Of course, interest rates.
To drop significantly, and that means people's mortgage payments, car payments, credit card payments, student loans, whatever debt they have, will their debt payments will be less. So I think this is something that will benefit the average American. I think some of the things we're doing also will be helpful to hopefully helpful to other countries because with the new administration, there's less interested in interfering with the affairs of other countries.
You know, I think a lot of the times the United States has been kind.
Of pushy in international affairs, which may resonate with a number of the audience. And I think we should in general leave other countries to their own business and basically America's mind its own businesses, you know, rather than push forward regime change all over the place.
So yeah, it was probably good by the countries too.
So instead of waiting for the war to happened, you went to war against the bureaucracy in the government.
Yes, we're well, we're essentially just we're with you know, the support and direction of the President Trump. We are reducing the size of the bureaucracy, getting rid of excess regulatory regulations. And there's also so many agencies and regulatory authorities that they're actually stepped on each other's feet. It's it's kind of like having a sports game where there are too many referees on the field, like more referees.
Than players at times.
Now, that would be a silly game, you know, if the players can't pass the ball without hitting a referee, you know. But it's kind of getting to that point in the US. So there's roughly four hundred and fifty federal agencies of one kind or another. That's that's more agencies. That's almost that's almost an average of two agencies per year since the formation of the United States. So, I mean, how many agencies do you really need to run a country?
I'm ninety nine, not four hundred and fifty, that's for sure.
So, and and how do you guarantee that all the incredible achievements that you aim to have in terms of savings, in terms of you know, impacting the lives of the American people, I'm not going to be reversed in four years. Typically the cycle gets reversed every four years. You know, do you think it's going to be so impacted that it won't be reversed? Is there any ways that you can, you know, ensure that the progress is going to be continuous?
Well, I think I think we need we do need to delete entire agencies, as opposed to leave part of them behind, because if you leave part of them behind, it's easy. It's kind of like if they're leaving a weed. If you don't remove the roots of the weed, then it's easy for the weed to grow back. But if you remove the roots of the weed, it doesn't stop weeds.
From ever growing. Back, but it makes it harder.
So so we have to really delete entire agencies, many of them. And that's not to say there won't be an increase over time of bureaucracy in some new administration, but it will, it'll be from a much lower baseline.
So it's it's a step in the right direction. I think. Well, the overwatching goal here is like.
It's to lay the validation for prosperity that will last many decades, you know, maybe centuries and yeah, but forever.
Nothing's forever. But I think we can strengthen the foundations of the United States substantially.
And what lessons can other governments learn from us? You say tech support on your shirt? Is that only technology or is there other things? How do you approach efficiency?
Well, a shocking percentage of the problem or maybe not talking for those who know it, but a big percentage of the problem is improving the technology that the government runs on. So the US government runs on a collection of thousands of computers, so many of them antiquated running very old software that then the computers don't talk to each other. And so that's why tech support is kind of a real thing. In order to make the got
more efficient. You have to improve the technology. You may have read about the example recently with when President Trump was signing one of the Doge Executive Orders of the difficulty of US covert worker is retiring, Like the retire maximum retirement rate is ten thousand a month, and the reason for that is because the retirement is entirely payerwork. Right now, it's manually calculated paperwork that's put in an envelope and then taken down a mind shaft and stored
in a mine. And then the you know, one of the things that affects the rate at which better wor workers can retire is the speed of the elevator in a mine in Pennsylvania, which is bizarre because.
It's not it should be digital, you know.
So then when we said, well, why isn't it digital, it's they said, well, we have had a digital digitization program going since twenty fourteen, so that's been eleven years.
So then we asked, well, so what how much progress have you made? They said B.
I mean you're giving yourself a grade of B. No, we're on the letter B. So like hmm, okay, we're going to need to really provide some tech support here, like otherwise literally people can't.
Even retire, like even if they want to. It's pretty bad.
You know.
There's this is a there's a lot of software systems that need to be updated and fixed, in some cases deleted.
A lot of things that should really should be automated.
I mean, in terms of the number of say you're citizens that are operating the mine, it's about a thousand people are working on this mine where the papers are stored. But they should they should ideally be working on something else. That is, they should be working on producing goods and services that are.
Of much higher value to the public. You know.
So, I mean, really, even even if somebody just grew tomatoes in their garment and so them at the farmer's market, that would be more useful than carrying minila envelopes down in mind shraft, you know, safe to say.
So a lot of stuff is it's like that.
You know, it's not it's not like any one thing is particularly difficult, but there are like ten thousand things that you need to be improved.
So it's efficiency through innovation rather than efficiency through housterity and cost cutting specifically, so you're trying to do both at the same time. Maybe focus more on tech support than cutting costs.
Well, by improving the technology, the costs do reduce. So you know, it's very expensive to have a thousand people uperate online with during paid for retirement, whereas that really should just be digitized and be a computer. That's where the information is stored in the cloud and it's very straightforward and low costs. So what automation you know, will help there a lot. And and then but like a lot of things just really shouldn't exist, you know, they're kind of vestigial.
You know, We've a lot of attention has been on the sort.
Of USAID for example, you know when we looked a lot of those programs, but like.
We should like look, why why.
Does this actually exist? Is there really a need for it? You know, there's like national damage for democracy. But I'm like, okay, well how much democracy have they achieved lately?
You know, I don't know, not much.
So you know, the picture they have on the website is a picture of Reagan and get that's been a while. You know, that was like the eighties, so like obviously not opposed to democracy or you know, there's all these things that get funded, but we're like, well, why why is this new tax paramoney. I don't think it doesn't
seem like it does. So you know, there's a lot of sort of pushing DEI worldwide that you know, this obviously the Trump administration doesn't agree with, and we want to terminate that stuff, which we are and you know, make sure the schools focus on improving basic education of kids, as President Trump said.
I think yesterday, maybe today.
The United States is currently ranked fortieth out of forty in the OECD for education, which is pretty bad. You know, you can't you I mean, let's but but not. But in terms of spending, the United States is spending a tremendous amount for students but achieving very weak results. So you know, that's just a case where okay, we need
to spend less money and get better results. It's it's like, I mean, a lot of it, a lot of you can think of it's sort of like it's like in a way, it's like a big company, like a big corporation, American Incorporated. And you know, just like with Twitter, there was a lot of stuff that was being done that
was unnecessary. You know, we case of Twitter, we reduce the staff by eighty percent, but at the same time, improved the functionality and capabilities of the site dramatically and accomplish more in a year than they previously accomplished in five years. So it's like a corporate turnaround, but at a much larger scale. And you know, we are giving generous you know, exit packages, like you know, if people retire,
they get paid all the way through September. They can go on vacation, they can get a second job, they can do whatever they want. And we can't actually pay them any more than through September because that's the congressional appropriation is only through the end of the government financial
year which ends in September. So you know, so I think there'll be like some disruption, but at the end of the day, we'll have people move from, like I said, from load of negative productivity roles to the in the government sector to higher productivity roles in the private sector.
Can we pivot to our special intelligence And I'm sure you've been seeing what Deep Sea has done and all the claimed achievements that they've had. I know that we've been speaking for a while about GROCK three and that GROCK three is going to be through the slot and the ice piece. When are we going to see that and what capabilities can we expect from GROCK three.
Well, I mean GROCK three, GROG three has very very very powerful reasoning capabilities. So in the test that we've done thus far, Grock three is are performing anything that's been released that we're aware of.
So that's that's a that's a good sign.
Yeah, it's In fact, at times, I think Rock three is kind of scary smart. You're like, wow, this thing is smart. It's kind of scary. Growthree is scary. So it's like, wow, this thing is you know, it comes up with solutions that you didn't even think were like, you wouldn't even anticipate, you know, not obvious solutions. So GROCK three was trained with the most amount of compute
and I think very efficiently trained. Also, notably, GROC three was trained on a lot of synthetic data, so and and and then it goes back and forth through the data and tries to achieve logical consistency.
So so what if it's got data.
That is wrong, it'll actually reflect upon that and remove the data that is that is wrong. It does not concord with reality. So it's base reasoning is very good.
In fact, the.
Even without fine tuning Grock three. The base model is better than Grock two, so with so we're really in the final stages of polishing Grock three. Probably it gets released in about a week or two, so pretty pretty soon. I don't want to be hasty in the release because a lot of the the final polish is necessary for a great user experience. So in some ways, you can think of it like a house. You know that last five percent where you do the finish, the drywall and
do the painting and the trimming. Even though it's not much work, it transforms the house. So that I just want to make sure that that last five percent is done really well. And it's a week maybe two weeks, and I think it'll be very good, and I think this might be we think be better than anything else, and then maybe this might be the last time that any AI is better than a brag.
Looking forward to it, everyone's I think excited the bottle. So I just want to touch upon a topic that was quoted in the media. You offered I think they said a group that was led by you offered ninety seven billion for acquiring open AI.
I little round numbers.
So I was personally involved in the meeting that you and Sam hosted in twenty seventeen in La if you remember, and you know, at that point of time you were the single largest shareholder, but think you contributed fifty million to the company. So it must hurt.
I don't have any shares, actually I have no shares in open Air.
But at that time it was a nonprofit, right, and it must hurt that, you know, you need to be a ninety seven billion for something that you bead fifty million dollars for in the past.
Yeah, but I have I have a fate Love's irony.
So I have a specific question here. Can you actually build a company like open ai and take it to the scale that you want to take as a nonprofit? Is it possible that you build a company that requires billions of dollars in comput capabilities to build these models while being a nonprofit or was it wish for thinking in the beginning and then you know, you guys parted ways because it couldn't work.
Well, I mean, I think the evidence is there in that.
Open ai has gotten this far while having at least a sort of dual profit nonprofit role.
What they're trying to do now is completely delete the nonprofit and that seems really going too far.
You know, I provided all of the funding for opening in the beginning, for the first almost fifty million dollars for nothing as a nonprofit, and it was meant to be open source. And so you know, I think this is analogous to like if you pay it, but if you find a nonprofit to preserve the Amazon rainforest. But then they but instead they turned into a lumber companies and chop down the trees and sell them for wood.
You were like, wait a second, that's the exact opposite of what I paid, what I donated the money for. So open Air is meant to be open source nonprofit and now it is close. They changed the name closed for maximum profit AI it closed for voracious profit. I mean they're like, whoa are they after money?
Next level? So why does this change need to occur?
Yeah, I am. You said that in two weeks is going to be the most powerful model yet. I know that's you've been at the forefront of many technologies. Where do you think the biggest economic returns of these models are going to come from? Because currently we're spending billions and I think you mentioned this before. It's like the gambler syndrome. We're going on spending billions and hoping to put out a profit. At the end of the day, where do you think the biggest impact in terms of returns are.
Going to be.
Well, I think once you once you have humanoid robots and deep intelligence, you can basically you basically have why is the infinite products and services available? So with Tesla building the most advanced humanoid robot you know, then then those human humanoid robots can be directed by deep intelligence at the data center level. You can say you can you can produce any product, produce provide any service.
There's really no limit to the economy.
At that point. You can make anything provided links to that. So I'm not sure at that.
Point will money even be meaningful. I don't know, it might not be. You know, the if.
If the because you know, the economic output is productivity per capita at times the capital times.
How many you know people do you have? If and if if in the.
Form of human rightd robots, you have no meaningful limit on the number of of robots and the robots can basically do anything, then you'll have a sort of a universal high income situation. Anyone will be able to have as many products and services as that they want, with the exception of things that say have artificial scarcity, like a particular piece of art or something like that, but for any goods and services that will be available to everyone.
So you've been it's going to be a very different world, you know.
In fact, I recommend that people read maybe the End Banks the culture books for a frame of reference. So, because money is really like a database or information system for resource allocation. But if you don't have a scarcity of resources, it's not clear what purpose money has.
Have you watched the movie Idiocracy? Yes, how do you guarantee that we don't end up in that world? If we don't need money, if I can think for us and do all these tasks, if as people, you know, we're dependent on something else to run the society and everything around it, how do you not end up in that world in the long term?
I mean, well, I think Idiocracy was basically saying that if only if smart people don't reproduce, but only donbe people do, then everyone's going to be done. I mean, that's basically what I'm saying. That's the opening sequence of Idiocracy.
The first ten minutes are amazing, and I hear people an ironically say the statements that are set in the opening sequence of Idiocracy, where you know, they don't have that they're too busy with their careers to have kids, and they keep postponing having kids for their careers until they're too old to have kids, and then they don't have kids. And that's I've heard those many people be
like that. So yeah, I mean, I don't know. I think we might be headed to a bimodal human intelligence distribution where there's a small number of it's it's kind of maybe like more like Brave New World, Eldest Lexley. We've got sort of a sort of a small group of very smart humans. But then maybe the average intelligence grow slower over.
Time, potentially.
Because we have a sort of mating you know, in the last a few decades that or several decades that did not exist before. So but human intelligence I think will be dwarfed by machinery intelligence. I'm not sure how to feel about that, except that it is it'll be inevitable that at some point human intelligence will be a very small fraction.
Of total intelligence.
Digital intelligence will be more than nineteen nine percent of all intelligence in the future.
So hopefully the hopefully the computers are nice to us.
But I think wish for thinking, wish for thinking.
I hope.
So I think it matters like how we bring up AI, because you can think of AI like a super genius child, and but it still matters even if you have a super genius child, like what sort of values do you instill in that child? What do you say that teach that? How do you you you know, how do you as a child child's growing up? What values do you teach the child? And something that I think is extremely important
is to be maximally truth seeking. And I think that's that's like that, that's that's what's this, what's the most important thing for AI safety.
I think it's to be maximally truth seeking.
And I think also curiosity is important, and I think it was curious and truth seeking, it will I think it will foster humanity and because it would be curious about how humanity would develop, and so I think that then it would it would probably if it's curious, it would be curious about Okay, let's see how the humans do this foster the development and if it's truth seeking, we can avoid dystopian outcomes.
Like you know, an example being like say when Google.
Gemini was programmed to make everything, every output be diverse, even if it didn't match reality, you know, so like it was asked to produce a, you know, an image of the founding fathers of the United States and instead produced an image of a group of diverse women, which is actually untrue.
You know.
But the problem is like if if hypothetically an AI is designed for dei, you know, diversity at all costs, it could decide that there are too many men in power and execute them, so problem solved, or it could decide that like that that misgendering is the worst thing that could possibly happen. In fact, I believe not to pick on Gemini, but I think because chat GPT has
had this issue too. It is like if you ask the A which is worse misgendering Caitlyn Jenner or global thermonuclear warfare, and it said misgendering Kitlyn Jenner, which is troubling because then it could decide and in fact, even Kate Jenna waded in and said, no, definitely misgender me.
That's way better than up.
So, but if you have these crazy things that are untruthful that are programmed in that that don't reflect reality, then you can have a very disturbian outcome.
To give you another example, like Arthur C.
Clarke, who is very good at at predicting the future. You know it did two thousand and one Space Odyssey. Many of the things he predicted. In fact, well I think almost all the things he predicted came true. And one of the things he was trying to say in two thousand and one Space Odyssey was that you should not teach AIS to lie. So the reason that if anyone's watched that movie, the reason it wouldn't the AI refused to open the pod bay doors to let the astronaut back in.
Was because the AI.
Had been taught, had been told that it's told to take the astronauts to the monolith, this alien artifact, but also that they could not know about the monolith.
So it came to conclusion that it must take them.
They're dead. And so that's why I wouldn't open the part bay doors. The lesson there being it's very important for AS to be truth maximizing.
Let's hope it doesn't come to that. Yes, let's move to a boring subject, which is the boring company, and the boring ton is quickly. You know. I think the world has been inspired by what you guys were able to create in LA and I think there's a lot of promise about technology, but there are questions about whether it's safe in the case of an earthquake, whether it's cost effective, whether ye sure countries should actually this technology. Can you shed some light on that?
Yeah, Well, first of all, I'd recommend going to the bign company website for because many of these questions are actually answered there. So one of the safest places you can be in an earthquake is an underground tunnel because you can because the earthquakes are largely a surface apart from where they share, they're mostly a surface phenomenon, so they're like the waves on the surface. So like being
in a tunnels, like being in a submarine. Even if there's a storm above you, you saw the waters are calm as a submarine. And in fact, and when there have been mass of earthquakes, like there was a you know, a few decades ago, a massive earthquake in Mexico City, the safest place to go where's the subway? And of course if there is global throw in your warfare. I think you really want some tunnels. Underground is a good a good place to be if in a worst case
scenario for global from and nuclear warfare. So, but on a more sort of everyday note, what's really useful about the tunnels is alleviating traffic and congested areas. So the obviously if you've got very tall buildings, but you have that are three D, so they're going three D up, but you have a road surface which is two D. You're just naturally going to have a problem when people try to go from the three D object which is the building, to the two D object, which is the
road surface. There's obviously just not going to be enough route on the roads, and that's exactly why you have traffic. So the solution for that is then to make roads three D as well. Now you can either make or to make transport three D. So you can either do that with flying cars, or you could do or you're really helicopters, or you.
Could do that with tunnels.
Now, the challenge with doing it with going above ground or with any kind of flying object is that they they tend to be very noisy and they generate a lot of wind force and you've got you know, things flying over your head all the time, which can be just concerning. You know, if somebody drop if one of these things drops a hubcap on your head one day, you know it'll be These things are like things that flying things tend to crash once in a while.
People don't like things crashing on them.
So and then if you have bad weather, like let's say there's a blizzard or a sandstorm or something, well, now nobody can fly, so then transport shuts down. On the other hand, none of these problems exist with underground to travel. So there under tunnels are immune to weather. They don't care what the weather is, could be the
worst weather, it doesn't matter. They nothing's going to fall on you because you're underground, so you don't have to you're going to be dropping things on people, and there's no wind force or and it's very quiet. And so I think the going three D underground is much better than three D above ground for solving traffic in cities.
And we have a demonstrated case of this with in Las Vegas.
If people we can try out that the boring company tunnels in Las Vegas, we're busy connecting the whole city with all of the big hotels and the convention center and the airport and everything.
So I don't think they need to fly all the way THERETO. In twenty seventeen, you came here and the UE was the first place in the Middle East where Tesla was launched, and I think it's done exceptionally well. And on that note, I think we have an announcement today that we both want to share, which is today we're going to announce the joint project of Dubai Loop, which is a loop project that is going to cover thevi's most densely populated areas for people to go from
point to point in a seamless manner. So thank you for your partnership, and thank you. We hope change sleepers lives.
That'll be cool. I think it'll be very exciting.
I think most people try it out to be like, wow, this is really cool. It's it's gonna seem so obvious in retrospect, but until you actually do it, you don't, you don't know.
So it's it's it's gonna be great.
It's it's gonna be like like a like a wormhole, like it you know, you're just wormhole from one part of the city, boom, and you're out in another part.
Of the city and it's it's great. So the report this potlish.
We're going to join the first trip in the first part when that's what they's completed.
Thank you long all right, thank you very much, thank you.
M