The full-length interview with Elon Musk | The Economist

Elon Musk, thank you so much for joining me on the Insider.Thank you for having us here at Tesla Giga.It is really hard to introduce you without using superlatives.You are doing, I think, more to build the future than literally anybody alive right now.

I'm doing a lot of building in general.

You're doing a lot of building?

I'm sort of an instinctive builder, I suppose.I just like building things.

You are, but you're building...

I just run around building things.

You run around building a lot of things.You pioneered electric vehicles, you've revolutionized space travel, you've got a cutting edge AI model now, humanoid robots.Can we start this conversation by putting all of this together?Tell me what the world's going to be like in, let's say, 10 years, if you succeed.

10 years, so we're talking 2036.

Hopefully we'll both be around.

Hopefully, yes.Probably.Most likely we will be.It's hard to imagine the future where there's not an overwhelming amount of artificial intelligence.Meaning, like in 10 years, I would expect artificial intelligence to be far greater than the sum of human intelligence, like far greater.In fact, I think AI may exceed the sum of human intelligence in around five years.

Five years?

Roughly five years is my guess.So there really won't be anything that AI can't do better than humans, apart from being human, perhaps.

In a more prosaic level, what will life be like?

The most likely outcome is an age of amazing abundance, where anyone can have anything they can think of.This may sound preposterous, but well, here we are in 2026.Let's see where we stand in 2036.Now, of course, there are things that could derail this, like a massive global pandemic.war or something like that.But assuming that there's not World War III, I think we're headed for an age of amazing abundance.

So this is, I guess, a message of optimism and excitement about the future.

So we'll talk about the abundance in a second, but just a very prosaic matter.How are your companies going to be making money?Because in the SpaceX IPO perspectives, it looked as though the overwhelming amount of the revenue would be coming from AI, from Grok really.It won't be transporting things to space, as SpaceX is now doing.What will your companies be doing in 10 years?And how will they make money?

Well, you can really think of the economy as digital and physical intelligence.What we have right now advancing very rapidly is digital intelligence, obviously, with AI that is, it seems, almost with every passing week, there are more AI breakthroughs.It can do something amazing that it couldn't do before.But it's still somewhat confined to the digital realm.It doesn't have end effectors.You need the end effectors in the form of humanoid robotics.

You need basically lots of bots.in a nutshell.You need lots of bots.And then you can go from intelligence manifesting itself only digitally to shaping atoms.And you say, what is an economy?An economy is the production of goods and provision of services.

And if you have vast numbers of robots with vast amounts of digital intelligence, you havea quasi -infinite economy.So the future is going to be very, very different from the past.There's no analogy or metaphor that I think illustrates the magnitude of change that we're going to experience here.

I understand that, and I'm also trying to kind of figure out what that world will look like.I think it'll be good.

It's going to be pretty incredible.

Yeah, well, we'll also do it.There are some risks, too.

Yeah, there's risks.I agree.We'll come to those.

But just on how, then, you make money, because in the end, people are buying your shares because they expect you to make money.Do you sell robots?

I'll make another prediction.Money won't matter in 2036.

You're watching My Interview with Elon Musk.If you want to get early access to other interviews, subscribe to The Economist by clicking the link above.Now back to the interview.I'm not sure that the people who bought your shares think that money won't matter in 2036.

Well, what do you want money for?You want money for goods and services, right?You want money for food, housing, transport, entertainment.Well, if that is so abundant that there's more that the robots and AI are providing more goods and services than any human could possibly consume, what do you need money for in that case?

But you're creating these robots.

I guess between now and then you'll need money, sure.

Are you selling these robots?Are you selling humanoid robots?Or are you producing goods and services with the humanoid robots that you control?

Are you the Levi Strauss?I think I would probably be, it would be an exercise in vanity for me to think that I would be controllingsuper genius AI that is vastly smarter than me. I think what we can and should try to do is to make sure that the AI has good values, that it cares about humanity, and that it wants us to be happy and prosper.I think it probably will be.What my biological neural net tells me is that the most important thing for AI safety is to be maximally truth -seeking.and curious.

If that's the case, I think it will foster humanity.

So let's unpack that.You're sure that humans will no longer be in control in 10 years' time?

I think it is unlikely, in the same way that if the difference in intelligence between AI and humans is vastly greater than the difference in intelligence between AI and chimpanzees, it's hard to imagine that the chimpanzees would be in charge.

I'm really struck by this.

And we are essentially an evolved form of chimpanzee.So it wasn't that long ago that we're swinging through the trees, eating bananas.in the jungle and we still eat bananas by the way we do and they're still you know sometimes swing through trees as well yes sometimes swing through trees it's kind of fun it's sort of um reminiscent of the past um for all time's sake swing through the trees once in a while probably you know there should be more swinging through trees i bet it's way more fun than people think i'm with you on that i'm definitely with you on swinging through trees i love swinging through trees but but but i'm really struck listening to you say this now, because I've been listening to a bunch of things that you've said over the years.

And 10 years ago, you were on a podcast, I think it was with Neil deGrasse Tyson, and you said that the thing that terrified you most was rapid recursive self -improvement in AIs.And you said, and it really struck with me, you said that we will just bethe pet Labradors at the best.

Well, Labradors are pretty happy creatures.

But in 2023, you asked for a slowdown in AI because you were worried about it.

Well, I signed on to, you know, as one of many, like 500 people, I was just, you know, one of many signatures on that thing.

But I think even last year you said, where was it, Ted Cruz's podcast, you said there was a 10 to 20 % chance of killer robots wiping out humanity.So you sounded worried then.Now you seem very relaxed about it.Have you changed your view?

I still think there's risk associated with AI and robots.It's not zero.I guess I've come to, my sort of philosophical conclusion is to look on the bright side.I can't see any way to really stop this incredible momentum of AI and robots.And at times I sort of think, well, perhaps even if there was a stop button, we probably shouldn't press it, because the most likely outcome is incredible abundance for all.

That's what I thought, actually.It struck me that now you seem to have decided it's inevitable.Let's hope for the best and go for the ride.

Yeah.Yes, pretty much.Let's enjoy the ride, is my philosophy at this point.There seems to be just inexorable progress here in AI and in robots.Even if I wanted to stop it, I couldn't.

Do you think there's still a 10 to 20 percent chance thatkiller robots mean the end of humanity?That's a high P -doom, as they say.

Well, in the long run, we're all dead, of course.According to the standard model of physics, the end of the universe is a long, boring, sort of thin, gray soup of gradual cooling.I mean, it's sort of the heat death of the universe is called.So if the heat death of the universe is in fact the outcome for our reality, then it really is all about the journey, because the destination is terrible.

Yeah, but 10 years is not very far.I get that, but that could be a long way ahead.Very long way.And you're basically saying, if it's 10 % to 20 % in 10 years, would you go into one of your rockets if you thought there was a 10 % to 20 % chance of it blowing up and killing you?

Yes, but let's say you can't do anything about it.I guess the only thing we can try to do is minimize the probability of the bad outcome.But trying to stop the intelligence in robots, for the longest time I declined to participate in AI or created OpenAI as essentially a counterweight to Google because at the time they had more or less a monopoly on AI.And then Anthropic spun out of OpenAI.And if anything, It seems like my actions have really accelerated AI.I wasn't really aiming to accelerate AI, but in creating OpenAI and then having Anthropic spin out of that, and now currently Anthropic is the leader in AI.

I mean, these actions have actually resulted in knock -on effects that accelerated AI, which wasn't really my intention.So it just seems like all roads lead to acceleration of AI.So then I'm like, okay, well, you can just sort of be sad about it, or Join the club, I suppose.

Well, you've certainly joined the club.

Yeah.

You've definitely joined the club.

You can't beat them, join them.

You've clearly done that and very successfully.But what about trying to minimize the risks?And a number of the other leaders of model makers have been pushing for different ways to try and minimise the risks.Just last week, Demis Hassabis came out with a proposal for a private public regulator.You said it was a good starting point for discussions, I think.Do you think you guys should be working more actively to get something in place to control the risks?

Or do you think that's impossible too?

My recommendation to Demis, because I talked to him for a few hours before he published his piece was that the most immediate thing that we could do is to have the leading AI companies at least just meet or have some sort of call once every few weeks and just discuss any safety and security issues.and that before a breakthrough, sort of a new frontier model is released, something that sort of is far more intelligent than anything that already exists, that there's an opportunity for the various competing AI companies to test that model for any harmful effects.and to be able to recommend poisoning to address some of these security issues.I think that's sort of the easy, quick thing that we can do.And it can evolve to more than that over time.That, I think, would be a smart move.

But why haven't you done that yet?I mean, there's like five of you, right?I mean, everyone knows the first name, Dario, Demis, Sam.I mean, you don't all like each other very much.We'll know each other.Yeah.

Yeah, but you're not all, I mean, you're also all competing, right?You all want to be first.

Yes, yes.But that's where I think the competitors can keep each other honest.So meaning, like, I think it's quite difficult for someone in the government who doesn't have a deep technical understanding and isn't driving the frontier of AI to know whether something should be released or not.However, the competitors, if given a week or two to review a new model, can highlight issues.and have an incentive to keep, all the competitors have an incentive to keep the others honest.

Do you have enough trust between you to do that?I mean, you don't much like each other.Wouldn't Sam Altman just think you're gonna nick all his ideas if you did that?

Well, we're just talking about, honestly, I think as little as a week is all that would be needed for private testing.It's not to hand over the AI.It's just to test it.

To test it.Have you proposed this?

Yeah, just to test it via an API or something.I think that would probably be a good thing to do.

Have you proposed it?That's what I suggested to Demis.

And I guess I'll talk to Daria about it too.There's also, of course, some very competent Chinese AI companies that several of themthat are very good.The new Kimi model.

Kimi K3, yeah, the one that came out last week.I mean, it was almost as good as Fable, right?

Well, I think realistically, Fable is still clearly the smartest model.I think anyone realistically would say that that's still the case.But the Kimi model is getting quite close to Fable.Now, Anthropic had Mythos, from which Fable is derived.I think they had that ready in February.So they've got, they've got for it with a call.

I'm not sure what they call it, but Mythos 2 or Fable 6 or something, something much better than what they had in February.They almost certainly have, not almost certainly, they certainly have right now.So, and I think they could, they could release it at any time.

Just before we get on to releasing, how do you think about the Chinese models and the geopolitics of it.Are you worried about the Chinese catching up and getting ahead?

Given that the Chinese AI companies are doing as well as they are with a relatively small amount of compute, it seems that if they had a lot of compute, there's a good chance that they would be the leaders.And at some point, they probably will have a lot of compute.

So they will, ergo, they will be the leaders.

There's a good chance that they are the leaders at some point.You can think of Like the constraints on AI, essentially electricity and AI chips.And then for physical AI, the robots.China's also got some very good robot companies.In fact, they have theserobot sporting events.

I don't know if you've seen some of them.

Yes, I have.Last time I was in Beijing, I saw the robots.

And then they have this sort of like a boxing match or a fighting match with the robots, which is quite entertaining.I saw some video of a robot that got his head knocked off and kept fighting, even with his head knocked off.It looked pretty funny.In fact, I think the robot battles are going to be quite entertaining to watch.So China's very strong on robots, very strong on digital AI, and if you look at electricity production, you can say like AI is a function of whatever the limiting factor is, if it's chips or electricity, China has far more electricity than the United States.In fact, China has more electricity than the United States, Europe, and India combined already, and is heading to, my guess is China gets to four times the electricity production of the U .

S., which is roughly proportionate to the population.

What should the U .S.government do about this?I mean, presumably it is a little alarming if you have an authoritarian regime far ahead in the most powerful technology.And clearly what the U .S.

government's been trying to do is, with the export controls and so forth, keep China back.Do you think they should ban the use of K3, Kimmy K3, for example?

Well, the U .S.government can't.They can pass some law that prevents U .S.companies from using Chinese models, but they can't stop the rest of the world from using them.

So it's not like the US government has authority over China or the rest of the world.

Do you think they should stop US companies from using them?

There's talk of that right now, right?I don't think that that helps.That won't stop China from being the leader in AI.for digital intelligence, it comes down to how much AI compute do you have, how many chips do you have, and how much power do you have, how much electricity do you have.So the constraint right now, I think, is actually slightly more on power and cooling than it is on AI chips, because the power demands of the AI chips are very, very high.We'll talk about water demands, but really the water usage of AI is negligible, almost nothing.

But the electrical demand is very high.

That's why you're thinking of orbital data centers, presumably.

Yes, the constraint for any AI chips not being turned on in China is electricity, like power and cooling, and the electrical equipment and everything.The rate at which AI chips are being made exceeds the rate at which new electricity is coming online.In China.outside of China.And since China, the U .S.

has banned the export of the latest AI chips to China, China is somewhat chip -stocked.

But they are becoming much more efficient at using the chips that they have.One of the striking things of Kimi K3 is how efficiently they...

And China is also, I think, closer than most people realize to solving the lithography problem, which would enable them to make are youelectricity outside of China, in China the constraint is chips.Once we address the power constraint with AI data centers in space, then the constraint will once again be chips outside of China.

That suggests to me that you need China and the U .S., if you're going to have some overall safety constraints, that they will need to work together.

If you are going to try, and you suggested I think probably it should include the Chinese companies that are doing frontier AI models too.

And do you think governments need to be involved?

My recommendation would be that if some of the leading companies in AI say that a new model is very dangerous, then they should inform the government.And if New Relic is very dangerous and that the company producing that model is not taking steps to address the danger, then they should alert the government to take action to limit the release of that model.And that could be action by the Chinese government or action by the U .S.government.It's really just the U .

S.government and the Chinese government that have the power to take action here?

I guess people would be worried about relying on a group of model builders to decide whether to do this.I mean, if you look at what the U .S.government has done with Mythos, they stepped in because they were worried about the cybersecurity risks, and they stepped in using threat of export controls to, you know, prevent the widespread release of this model.their money gets released.

I think they should have that power.But it wasn't as though someone in the government figured out that Methos had some scary cybersecurity risks.It was Amazon.Amazon highlighted this, and Amazon called the White House.

So you'd have a system where the model makers would check each other's work.If there was something that worried them, you'd tell the government.The government would then take action.

If there's something that was worrisome and that company was not doing anything to address that risk, then that would be the moment for government to step in and take action, which is literally what just occurred with the first.

How soon does all this have to happen?

I think it would be good to do that, I think.Immediately really.Yeah.Yeah, that's what people keep telling me We have to get this some kind of system in the next six months because of the pace at which the models are improving Yeah, six months is a long time So you think I mean that well, I mean there's so many AI Breakthrough announcements sometimes multiple per day.I mean, how many were there last week?

I lost track, you know a lot So you basically, whether it's Demis's proposal or others, you need to get together and get this set up kind of now, it sounds like you're telling me.

Yeah, I would recommend that we at least have some sort of informal weekly or bi -weekly call and that there's maybe a week or two weeks of early access by competitors.And this is why I think the incentives work, is because if competing companies, I think, are likely to understand if something is a security risk and they're not going to be shy about highlighting that they're committed to it.models should be delayed in release.I think the incentive structure does work quite well there.And this is sort of how it works with the Motion Picture Association.It's an industry group that decides how movies should be rated, whether it's appropriate for young children or not.

And that seems to have worked quite well.And then you really just ask the government to intervene if a company is doing something very dangerous and refuses to take action to reduce the danger.

Do you think, this is a tricky one, but you guys don't much like each other and you don't much trust each other.You're insulting each other on social media constantly.So do you think you can do that with people that you dislike, where there seems to be such kind of personal vitriol between some of these leaders?

Yes.Well, I'm not a fan of Sam Ullman because You're watching my interview with Elon Musk.

If you want to get early access to other interviews, subscribe to The Economist by clicking the link above.Now back to the interview.

If you started a nonprofit that was meant to be an open source AI company and owned by the world, and it somehow got turned into an $800 billion for profit company with closed source, I think you'd be like, well, wait a second, that's the exact opposite of what I donated the money for.That's my issue.I think it's a legitimate one.And then Dario, I think, also is not a fan of Sam Altman because he felt, in fact, the reason the Anthropic team left OpenAI is because they didn't trust Sam Altman.Otherwise Anthropic wouldn't exist.They would still be at OpenAI.

I think Dario is a very principled person.He cares about things a lot.He cares about the future of the world, and I think everyone I've met at Anthropic so far has been...No one set off my evil detector.They always seem like they're well -intentioned.And the road to hell is, I think, mostly paved with bad intentions.

There are a few well -intentioned paving stones in there, so we don't want to be complacent.At the end of the day, if we have to talk, we'll talk.I mean, set aside our personal differences for the good of the world.

Well, that's a very good thing for the rest of us to hear.

Yeah.

Can we turn to one other risk that people worry about?Particularly, I think, ordinary Americans, where AI has become incredibly unpopular.75 % of people are worried about it.And I think they worry about their jobs.And if you look at, I mean, Dario has said famously what 50 % of entry level jobs, entry level white collar jobs will be gone within a few years.You're building humanoid robots.

Yes.He also said, like, I mean, Dario did dig his own grave here regarding Mythos, because he said, you know, Mythos is like super scary, terrifying.And also, by the way, we're going to release it.And then he's like, what do you mean?You know, so I think he.I think probably in the future we'll choose these words differently.

If you terrify everyone and then say, oh, we're releasing this terrifying thing, people will obviously be alarmed about that.You've literally told them to be scared, and then you release the scary thing, and so they will be scared.That is natural.

So I certainly don't want you to alarm people, but I do think there is a really important debate about how quickly and to what degree AI has displaced people from jobs.Because it is, as you say, in 10 years there's more artificial intelligence than any human being.And if you are, and I think you're ahead of everyone, at least in this country, on powering humanoid robots, that's also going to be kind of factory work.So are you closer to Dario, let's say, in your sense of the pace at which jobs are going to be displaced?

I do think it's going to be a bumpy road, because AI will be able to do any job.better than any person can do that job.And that will be true very quickly of jobs that are digital or really anything that involves a person at a computer or on a phone.AI can do all of that.We'll be able to do all of that very soon.For software engineering, we already have a situation where AI is better than at least 90 % of humans at writing software.

90 % of professional software engineers at writing software.and it really is getting to the point where it'll be better than 99 % and then it'll get to the point where there's just no way to compete.It'll get to what I call stockfish level.So, stockfish.Stockfish is the chess program that, stockfish is so good at chess that it will easily beat Magnus Carlsen or anyone at chess.Even running on a small computer, I suspect that you could probably run Stockfish on your phone and beat Magnus Carlsen.

That's how good it is at chess.And that's how good AI will be at writing software.

And beyond software?And then?

applies to everything.

Everything?

Everything, everything.

But what about for physical jobs, for assembly jobs, you will also need the capability in humanoid robots, which so far isn't there yet, is it?

Right.So that's why I said digital AI and then physically manifested AI in the form of robots, where the robot is more or less an end effector.It would have some amount of local intelligence, but be managed by a large AI model.And I've said many times I think work is going to be optional.So I think maybe a good comparison would be gardening.You don't have to garden.

You don't have to grow vegetables in your garden.You can go to the store and there are going to be pristine vegetables or you could grow vegetables in your garden and they will actually be less perfect.tomatoes are not going to be as plump and juicy as the ones at the store.They'll look a little artisanal.But if you go to a friend's house and they make dinner with vegetables from their garden, it's a nice touch.

This is what work is going to be like.I get that.I mean, in that world, I would be hopeless because I can't go out and save my life.But I get the idea.People still like playing chess with each other, even though every computer is better.But let's just think about the politics of this.

Because it sounds to you, you're describing a world where within 10 years, pretty much every job can be done better by an intelligence.And you're seeing huge returns to this intelligence.Two people like you, you're the wealthiest man in the world.what people who lose their jobs who are justwho may go off and garden, but how are they going to live?And what kind of, I mean, it sounds to me like - It's going to be universal high income.

But how are you going to get there?Let's talk about the politics of this.Sure.Because right now, if we look at the political pressures in most countries, people are very, very worried about this, very against it.I mean, it seems to me that there's a risk that you're heading more for revolution than for an easy route to this nirvana you're playing out.

I mean, it will be a bumpy road.I'm not suggesting it will be sort of that everything will be smooth sailing here.So I mean, there are many jobs that used to exist that don't exist because of computers.I mean, the word computer used to refer to a person doing computations like that used to be a job description of a person.And you can see pictures online of of buildings that have entire skyscrapers just filled with people doing calculations to do things like calculate the interest on your bank balance.This is how things were done for a long time until computers came around.

And even in the beginning, computers were very expensive and hard to use.So the thing that's different here is that the pace of change is radically accelerated.So it's still people, you know, some people were upset that they their job of calculating bank interest would no longer be available.But now I think there's, you'd be hard pressed to find people who want to do that job.So I think, I have a suggestion for say, what say science fiction books people might want to read to get a sense of what the future will be like.And the best

envisioning of an AI future that I've read are the books by Ian Banks, the culture books.

I'm just reading Accession.Thanks to you, I've started reading these.I actually don't find that future a terribly appealing one because I don't think humans have agency in that future.

They have agency.

Minimal compared to the mind.

In their small way.

But the irony, I mean, Ian Banks, as you know, was a socialist.Ian Banks had a very different political philosophy.

I'm not sure I would entirely agree with that.

Let's agree that that could be where we end up.I'm concerned about the road.And we live in democracies, and people are very worried about this.So I guess two questions.Firstly, do you have to have massive redistribution from people like you to the people who are losing their jobs?Do you need to pay more tax?

Do you have much higher taxes on capital so that you fund some kind of universal income?Otherwise, what do people live off?

I think that the treasury should just simply issue people checks.

But where's the revenue coming from?I mean, I'm enough of an economist.If you just issue checks, you're going to have inflation.

A lot of what we're trying to think about is these things were relevant in the past, they will not be relevant to the future.So, like inflation is simply the ratio of money to goods and services.So, if the goods and services output increases dramatically, if it increases, you know, a thousand percent, you can increase the, you can literally print, or in this case, change the database, not print money.You create money in the database.Provided the creation of that money is is less than the rate at which goods and services increase, you actually have deflation.So I'll make a prediction which is

that deflation will be the issue, not inflation.Because as the output of goods and services increases, if the output of goods and services increases faster than the money supply, you will have deflation.

I'm perfectly willing to believe that.

You may well be right.

It's just a statement of fact.Absolutely, you may well be right.But I'm really hung up on how we get from the current polarized, angry, fearful policy we have now to this nirvana.And I think you could, you can paint a picture where people are so scared by this, you know, they essentially try to stop it.Maybe they can't, but you get nationalized.There's a kind of, you know, far left government.

There's exorbitant tax increases.The kind of economy crumbles because people are so worried about a future, which does sound quite scary as you describe it.So how do you, how do you handle the politics now?

It's exhilarating and terrifying.But if you were in the, yeah, exactly, exactly.Honestly, if you ask me on any given day, in fact, even intraday, I've gone from exhilaration to terror regarding AI.

So I want to be clear.Where are you right now?

I'm not sort of some, you know, I'm not trying to be sort of Candide here and just be some, oh, everything's wonderful, some pan -Glossian view of the world where everything's going to be great, no risk.I'm saying there is some risk.

I think we agree on that.I guess I'm trying to be more, sort of, you know, small bore and practical and think about what can be done now to limit those risks.And you gave a very strong argument for what you and your fellow model makers could do.What should governments do?

I think it probably would be good for us to coordinate and just highlight issues that we see in each other's models to mitigate the outside risk.

Should the government, should you be paying more tax to fund more transfer programs?

Well, first of all, I don't agree with that.pay a lot of tax.In fact, I set a record for the most amount of taxes ever paid by a human.

That's also because you're the world's richest man.

Well, even before that.My guess is that I will pay many trillions in tax, and I'm fine with that.That's just the way it's going to be.But I don't think in a future where money is relevant, I think taxation also becomes somewhat irrelevant.

And what about giving people a sense that they have a share in the upside?

Sure.

Giving people shares in SpaceX, in Tesla.Do you think that's so?And there's a lot of talk about this right now.

Well, one of the reasons I took SpaceX public is so that the public could participate in they could own a piece of SpaceX, whereas as a private company, we're very limited in the number of shareholders we're allowed to have before going public.So as a public company, we can have millions of shareholders.As a private company, we're limited to just a few thousand shareholders.

So do you think there should be distribution of shares like, you know, the Alaska Wealth Fund is there for which could you imagine a world?And some people talk about the Trump accounts being a kind of vehicle for this, that you share of your equity goes to ordinary Americans?

Right.Well, in the taxes that I pay, for my stock options, I pay 40 % income tax on a national basis.And then because I spend about 30 % of my time in California, I pay roughly a third of the California state taxes, which are now around 15%.So I pay about 45 % in taxes.just so people know this.It's roughly half.

Then when I die, there'll be another sort of 45%, roughly half, that will be taxed.So at the end of the day, I'll have a quarter of whatever I have.I think the only thing it gives me is that for some period of time, I would have control of the direction of the companies.So it's not, that's pretty much what it gets me.And until I guess the AI is so smart that it's in charge, and at that point, controlling companies won't really matter.

Well, let's talk about that, because I think one of the other things that worries people about the direction we're heading in, and I'm going to caricature it, but people think that the direction of the world is being shaped by a very small number of incredibly powerful people.And you are right at the top of that list.

What else is this different from the past?

I agree with you.I think it was like that.

When wasn't that the case?

It was ever thus.It was ever thus, exactly.As you've described very vividly, it's an incredibly rapid change.And so let's start with control of your company, which you definitely have now.After the IPO, you basically have 80 % odd of voting shares.And as I understand it, you can only be removed by a vote of shares which you yourself control.

So tell me if I'm wrong, but I think you could go crazy.Yeah, well there's a few companies in that bucket.

By the way, the AI companies, like Google's in that bucket.Alphabet is controlled by Larry and Sergey.

I think yours is more extreme.No, it's the same level.

They have voting control of that company.Mark Zuckerberg has control of Amado.And Mark is trying very hard on the AI front, and I think probably willalso have a leading AI.I think he released one last week.So I think he'll be one of the, Meta will be one of the AI companies.

But is it sensible for one person to have so much control over a company?

Well, I really just need to make sure that I can focus on long -term.By long -term, I just mean in the five to 10 years.One of the challenges with being a public company is the pressure to have great results every single quarter and to not really invest in things that may only pay off in five to 10 years.And in the case of SpaceX, I want to extend consciousness beyond Earth and have a growing civilization on the moon, Mars, and elsewhere in the solar system.the return.I think ultimately, this would have a very high return on investment.

But in the short term, we'll be spending all this money on a moon base, or on a Mars base.And then people like, you know, I'm gonna, I'm gonna get all this pressure for like, well, you missed your earnings this quarter because you spent too much on Mars.I'm like, yes.By the way, that was in the S1 prospectus.And it's literally listed as a thing we will do.But they still get grumpy about these things, you know?

They're like, well, you had whatever, you know, you said your gross margin would be this.And it's actually slightly worse.And now we're going to punish you.And the short sellers all descend upon you.And you get a lot of pressure in the public market.Yeah, so I just need some way to sort of say, listen guys, we're going to focus on 5 to 10 year or longer time horizon investments.

This will depress our short term earnings.But the long, I mean, if you take a long -term view, and there are investors, we have many investors that do take a long -term view.In fact, I'm a big fan of the retail investors.In fact, I find our retail investors on balance have the, they're very insightful and have very long -term views.But part of this comes when you say, what's the incentive structure?For portfolio managers, it's sort of understandable why they put so much pressure on quarterly earnings because their compensation and whether they get promoted or not is dependent on how their portfolio does and they only have a few years to make these decisions and then they're evaluated based on those decisions over the course of sometimes only a year or less and so since they're under pressure, to have immediate returns, they then put companies under pressure to have immediate returns.

So once you understand the incentive structure, the behavior naturally follows.

What about the key man risk?I mean, what happens if you get run over by the proverbial bus tomorrow?You have total control over these companies.Do you have a plan for how they would progress without you?

I think they would actually do very well for for several years.And you know, there's a clear roadmap for, or space map, I should say, for SpaceX.And there's a roadmap actually for Tesla, literally.So I think, I think there's, you know, if you look at Apple after Steve Jobs, Steve Jobs had, you know, he had a strategic vision and a bunch of products thathad ideas for, and Apple has done very well.But when you don't have a creative genius like Steve Jobs, what Apple's missing are the incredible breakthrough products.

They make amazing phones, great computers, but Apple hasn't come up with a sort of Steve Jobs -level breakthrough product.

So by analogy, that's what?you bring to all of your companies.You mentioned Mars.Most people think of you as the man who wants to create a colony on Mars, so we have multi -planetary civilization.

I've been saying that for such a long time.

You have, but now you seem more focused on AI and what AI will do in the next 10 years.And you sound much more excited about using the moon as a base from which to pop out orbital AI satellites.Have you shifted your attention away from Mars, or are you as interested in colonizing Mars as you ever were?

I'm interested in the set of actions that propagate consciousness into the future to the maximum degree possible, so that the future light cone of consciousness is as big as we can...There's an exciting future where we're a space -faring civilization out there among the stars, and the great things that are envisioned in the future non -dystopian sci -fi books and movies become real one day.I sort of want the Star Trek, you know, Star Wars future.Star Wars was the first movie I ever saw in a theater, by the way.Really?Yes, maybe it had a profound effect on me, I suppose.

I remember I wasit blew my mind, honestly.I think I was six years old, and I was like, this is the greatest thing I've ever seen.

Has your life been about making that happen?

Yeah.I mean, I didn't think it would be when I was young, but my life feels somewhat surreal.I can't believe these things are actually happening.I think the world feels somewhat surreal.It makes me believe in simulation theory, where it's like, well, the things I'm doing are so preposterous that it's hard to believe they're real.I mean, we've got Starship, which is the largest, most powerful flying object ever made.

And we intend to launch that more than once per hour.

I know.I read that.And we can, you know, people can quibble about how quickly it happens, but I think based on your track record, we should assume it will happen at some point.

It will happen.

I'm just sort of struck that when I, when I, I am as blown away by this world as you are, and I'm, I watch it from a, from a much more naive level, but For me, the whole evolution of AI and the capabilities of these models is, in and of itself, so mind -blowing.

It's pretty much happening as I thought it would.

Is it?

Yeah.

Oh, that's interesting.

And not just me.Many people predicted this.I think Ray Kurzweil's predictions have been remarkably accurate.

Yeah, the singularity approaching.Let's go back more immediately to the here and now.We've talked about concentration of control in your companies.You've made a very good case for why you should have it.You also have, through Starlink, incredible geopolitical power.I mean, I'm one of your customers, excellent product.

But without them, the Ukrainians would have been in serious, serious trouble.

And when you - Yes, the Ukrainian governor has publicly thanked Starlink many times for being instrumental in defending Ukraine.

And you recently decided to prevent the Russians in the occupied territories from having access to Starlink.

Well, no, we were never at any point selling Starlink to Russians.

But they were grabbing it, right?They were using it, and you've now stopped them from doing that.

Well, they essentially got Starlink units that they ordered through Ukraine and then smuggled them into eastern Ukraine, where the Russians are, and were then using them, in some cases, for attacks.Now, in order to address this, what we worked with the Ukrainian government to create a whitelist of approved Starlink terminals.Now this has some downsides because a whole bunch of people who were just innocent users of Starlink and just trying to access the internet for work or for education now don't have Starlink.

These are geopolitical decisions of consequence.How do you feel about having that power?You could determine the outcome of wars.How does that feel?And is it right that you should have that power?

Well, I'm not sure we'd we're determining the ultimate outcome of the war in Ukraine.I do hope that there's some sort of peace agreement reached soon, because for two or three years now, the border has barely moved, and every day there are lots of people dying at the front line.And I think there's a lot of wishful thinking here of people saying, well, Russia should completely withdraw, et cetera.But this is not realistic.I really think there needs to be some peace.We have to be pragmatic about this.

What I think would be terrible is if there's another three years of people dying senselessly at the front lines.with, and you have to say like, well, you know, how do you explain to the children of the men that are dying at the front lines?Russia, on the Russian side too, by the way, they're being conscripted and sent there.I am quite offended by sort of fancy diplomats who have, you know, seven course dinners in, you know, in luxurious places while people are dying at the front lines and who pontificate about how Russia should withdraw, but they're not going to, Russia's not going to withdraw.There really needs to be an accepted peace along those lines.

Do you think it's your responsibility to play a role in tipping the scales towards what you see as the right way to peace?

I've been advocating peace for a long time.I posted a few years ago that there really needs to be some concession here to Russia.This is not me being pro -Russia, I'm just being pragmatic.Or people will die for years.with nothing achieved.And that is exactly what happened.

I don't know.I mean, the Ukrainians are doing pretty well right now with their incredible drone coverage.hitting inside Russia and the kind of general consensus is that, you know, the balance of the war is shifting.But my point is not so much about...

Ukraine is not going to retake those territories.It is not going to happen.

My interest is really on whether you think, given that you have through Starlink, you have an incredible power, whether it's appropriate that you should wield it.That's quite rare that an individual actor has such power by turning on and off a capability to shape conflict.

Well, is this something you think I should do differently?

I mean, I think you were right to support Ukraine.I think that, you know, I won't surprise you.I think that the Russian aggression was, you know, for many, many reasons, an appalling aggression.And I think that that was an important thing that you did.

Yeah, I mean, I did a very deep dive into the background of that conflict to understand exactly what was going on.And I'm reminded of the old adage that there are no angels in war.

It's a similar tone, I think, about domestic politics, where you've played a big role domestically, politically here.You spend a lot of money on Donald Trump's re -election.After the election, you got very actively involved.Through Doge, you tried to cut a lot of spending, reshape the government.How do you feel?It wasn't hugely successful in the sense that there wasn't nearly as much spending cut as you tried.

How do you look back on that?Do you regret getting so involved in politics?Do you think it was a good thing to do?

I think I got a little too involved in politics, got carried away, frankly.You know, the goal with this sort of Doge stuff was to try to do something about the deficit, which is massive, where the interest paymentsexceed the amount of money spent on the Department of War.Like, basically, if you add up all the money spent on what is now the Department of War and intelligence in the U .S., that is smaller than the interest payments on the debt.

We need to take a close look at spending and make sure that money is being spent in sensible ways and that it is not wasted or spent on fraudulent activities.I got a lot of flack for this, obviously, but people don't understand just how simple it was for the Doge team to approve payments.Literally, we just asked to have the contact information of the recipient or some evidence that say money was going to its intended purpose.But over and over, we were told we need to wire money for some sort of important cause in Africa.And we're like, OK, but the wiring, wiring instructions are to Deloitte and Touche in D .C.

, in Washington, D .C., not to Africa.So we would like to send the money to Africa.Can you please connect us with the recipients so we can send them the money directly?

And then we get silence.I have.We don't need to relitigate Doge.I have no doubt that there was There's a lot of waste in the U .

S.government.

I think probably much worse than anyone could possibly imagine.But the way I think there is it is a fair criticism that the way you shut down a whole bunch of programs probably and certainly cause unnecessary suffering.

I mean, no, no, no.You don't know.

It caused a lot of complaining.You're watching my interview with Elon Musk.If you want to get early access to other interviews, subscribe to The Economist by clicking the link below.Now, back to the interview.I just don't think that's right.I just don't think my, I mean, I had people reporting in Africa who...

How many NGOs are there that could, that could, that could step in?Because bear in mind this, it was, it happened quickly.So this, and there are literally tens of thousands of NGOs.

Not everyone functions as fast as you do.If funding is cut off for antiretrovirals overnight, and it just stops, then people will die when they don't have access to them.

No, only if they cannot get funding for that.But the Gates Foundation has $50 billion.What about them?What about any one of a number of organizations?McKenzie Bezos, whatever her last name is, used to be Bezos, gave $50 billion.

What about that?But let's be practical.In many of these countries, USAID was the biggest funder.But I don't want to have an argument.

USAID was a political organization.

It may also have been that, but it was the biggest funder of health care systems.So I am very sure that there was...

Biggest funder of regime change.

And there may well be benefits from having changed the system.

Also, USAID funding was not stopped.It was moved to the State Department.

There were huge numbers of things shut down in Africa that were health -related.

No, there were claims of this.These claims are false.They're nonsense.And absolute nonsense.But obviously, when funding is stopped for fraudulent organizations or for something.Do you think they're going to say, do you think they're going to say, well, we please keep funding the fraud?

Or do you think they're going to come up with a sad story that sounds sympathetic in order to get the funding restored?Obviously it will be the latter.And that's exactly what they did.But zero died because that's what I that's zero.

That's what I would say.I think you can I actually have a lot of sympathy for the change of the aid regime.that the U .S.under the Trump administration has precipitated.However, I think the pace and the suddenness with which it happened will almost certainly have caused unnecessary suffering and deaths.

And I think both of those can be true.

No, I think that's totally false.

Okay.

And obviously false because there are, the amount of funding we're talking about is far less than what can be done, than what can be supported via private by foundations like the Gates Foundation or Mackenzie Bezos' foundation.She's given away tens of billions of dollars.The Gates Foundation has tens of billions of dollars.They are capable of acting very quickly.And if they didn't, I would say they're equally responsible.

I see.

Okay.

Obviously.All right.Fair point.

Zero people died because of drugs.

I hear you loud and clear.Zero.Hear you loud and clear.Obviously.Domestically, you stepped away from Doge.It was hard to do what you were trying to do.

You've just explained it.But this administration has gone in directions that I suspect you were not expecting two and a half years ago.

I'm not going to agree with everything any administration does.

Are you disappointed by this administration?

No, I think this administration, on balance, is excellent.No administration is perfect, but it's vastly better than the alternative.

Can we talk about Europe, a place that you are very, very focused on.Judging by your posts, you're pretty concerned about Europe.You support...

I mean, once in a while I post something.

It's reasonably frequently.It's not once in a while.But because I'm genuinely interested in this, as someone who lives in Europe, lives in London.

Yeah.

You paint a picture.Well, first of all, you support not just the populist right, but the far right.In fact, very fringe parties in some countries.

No, I support the normal people.

Okay.

What you call the far right, falsely.

You think is the normal person.Okay.

Yes.Literally, you could go back 10 or 15 years and these policies were completely normal.In fact, one of the tricks that I think is quite funny is to like take a speech from Obama and Hillary and then go to someone say who's sort of, you know, on the sort of what I call the lunatic left.and say, what do you think of the speech by Trump?I'm like, oh wow, he's the worst person ever.Actually, that was a speech by Obama.

Or actually, that was a speech by Hillary.

I agree.No, I agree that the center of gravity in this country has shifted.Certainly the Democratic Party shifted to the left.But that's not what I'm talking about.I'm talking about people like Rupert Lowe.I'm talking about people on...

It's actually just normal people.It's just normal people.It's just normal people.And here are the principles.And tell me which of these sound terrible.That we should have secure borders.

That we should have safe cities.That we should have sensible spending.Which of those three are far right fringe?And I would like to just admonish... you and the media for the absurd characterization of the far right.It is false and misleading and nonsense.Please keep this part in.

We'll keep all of this in.

Don't cut this part.

Let me push back on that.Let me push back on that.Because it is nonsense.Elon, you have, what is it, close to 250 million followers on X. Yeah, I guess I'll put it that way.like, quote, civil war in Britain is inevitable.Just a question of when.

When were you last in the UK?

A few years ago.

Exactly.So I live there.I'm there the whole time.That is nonsense.

You live out a cloistered existence.

No, I don't actually.And the numbers also disprove what you say.What numbers?All the numbers about crime.London is a much safer city than any city in the United States.Violent crime in the UK is not where you think it is.

In fact, it's coming down.You have painted, and because you have so many followers, so many Americans believe it, a kind of view that Europe and the UK are kind of, you know, overrun with terrifying Muslim immigrants.There's rape on every corner.There's a sort of civilizational destruction.

I haven't said any of those things.

It's just not, when you say civil war in Britain is inevitable.

Yes, if current trends continue, it is.

Why?

Well, if you have a large and growing, rapidly growing group of people whose beliefs are antithetical to Western beliefs, at some point there will be a reckoning.They will try to implement their views, and those who oppose it will oppose it, and that's what you call civil war.And obviously, this is the trend.And you absolutely do live in a cloistered existence.And if you'd like, we can go on a tour of Britain.

Sure.

I'd be very happy to come on a tour of Britain.And you will see for yourself.

You come see my country, that I live in all the time, and you haven't been to a few years ago.

Yes, I've been there literally 100 times.

But when was the last time?

Literally a few years ago.

You know why this exercises me?Because you have really shaped opinion about the UK and so many Americans I come across and I have conversations with and they'll be and I just had one the other day along the order of oh London's such a dangerous place.How can you know?There are sort of grooming gangs everywhere.There's violence everywhere.This is a picture that people get from things that you post or that are posted on X. And for example, you're posting for, what was it, 48 hours of citizen vigilante.

That film, which paints a dystopian...I've watched it.It was not fun.I watched it yesterday.It's not a very good movie.But it also paints a dystopian picture of Europe and it glorifies vigilante violence.

It glorifies the murdering of a Muslim immigrant family.I honestly think that it is irresponsible for you to put that up on X. I think that it's a movie and it's worth watching.You're clearly suggesting Europe is a dystopian place and you...

Yes, I mean, why aren't you doing more to fight censorship in Europe?Why aren't you?You seem to be doing nothing to fight censorship in Europe.

That's not true.I think that there are issues with free speech.They put people in prison in the UK for social media posts.

Do you think that's appropriate?

No, and we've written editorials against it.Okay, great.That's the sort of thing that I think is bad.And I agree with you, but I don't think you have to glorify vigilante violence and kind of post the things that you are doing and paint an entirely inaccurate picture of Europe that you do.

I don't think it is.

We should do a tour of the UK.Yes, and one of Brussels too.Because the UK has actually been very good at integrating immigrants.The UK is very effective at doing that.There are problems.I'm the first to admit that there are problems.

Yes, there are major problems.

There are problems, but it really is not what you are describing to or suggesting to your 240 million followers it is. I think it is.And I think there's a problem.

No, I think I'm spot on.

And that's why you have freedom of speech, or at least you don't anymore in the UK.Well, freedom of speech allows people to say things that are wrong, but your point is that you're not just saying, I have every right to say what I want.You're saying, I am right about Europe, and I really don't think you are.

I think I am.

I think you will find that most people in Europe, or many people in Europe, don't think you're right about it.But let's come to that.

Because the media keeps ignoring reality.I don't think that's true either.And they're programmed by the TV and conventional media.

And why are you?This is, I guess, even to me, sort of the bigger picture question.Why do you focus on this?Why are you interested in it?Because on the one hand, we started this conversation and you described to me this extraordinary, transformative, amazing, so yeah, civilizational changing stuff that's happening in the next 10 years.And yet you're also, you know, an ongoing participant in the worst kind of tribalism cesspit of social media.

How does that fit?Are you, you know, they're two very different views of the world.

Yeah, I don't think they're inconsistent.

But why do you do the latter one?The tribalism?I mean, people say that you're a racist.People say that you're, you know, there's all kinds of things said about you, which I'm sure you would disagree with.But I just don't understand what is the motivation for doing that?

My partner is, she's half Indian and I have four children with her.You know, One of them was named after a famous Indian physicist.So I would say I'm not racist.And also, if you look at the people that are employed at my companies, we have senior executives of all races.I don't think there's any racism there.

Are you anti -Muslim?

If people are coming to a country with antithetical views, I am against that.I'm against rape and murder.I'm against the imposition of rules and laws that are contrary to what we've come to accept in the West.And I think it's a crying shame that the sort of traditional media like you don't recognize this.

First of all, I think that you hugely exaggerate.the challenges that Europe faces.Secondly, in areas I completely agree with you, I think that, you know, the constraints on freedom of speech in the UK in certain areas are problematic.What worries me is that the people you are supporting are really quite vile people in some areas.Like some members of the AFD, Alice Weidel, whom I've met, is a perfectly thoughtful person, but in her party, are some real neo -Nazis, are some really, really awful people.And your blanket support of this kind of party with 240 million followers means that you have a power in Europe that I think perhaps you don't realise the scale of impact you have.

But you can...

Well good, I hope I am having a big impact.

But why?Why should you?Why should you be able to shape European politics?You don't even live there.

I think of it as the West collectively.

But do you see why this makes people think that this man who has all this power, he's the world's richest man, he thinks he has a right to influence our politics.It makes people, it's why, you know, we started this conversation saying superlatives.It's why people loathe you.I mean, some people do loathe you.

Yes, some people do.

But do you understand why?Do you think what you're doing is helpful for Western democracy?

Maybe some people do loathe me.And that's probably true.I don't care.But the fact that as you pointed out, a quarter billion people follow me is that I think a lot more people actually like me than don't.And I think a lot more people hate you and the media more than you realize.Do you realize the media is despised?

Do you realize that journalists, the view of journalists is like, it's like a favorable view of journalists is like 15%.

Yeah, I do know that.In the United States.

So the shoe is on the other foot.They hate you.They hate you.

far more than they hate me. I think there is certainly a loss of trust in journalism.I think, in part, there have been mistakes by journalists and journalism.I totally acknowledge that.But I also think that the kind of polarized environment, particularly on social media, fostered by the kinds of things you are pushing on X, actually helps this, makes it worse.

I don't think so.I think you're the problem, the media.And speaking of loathing, you're loathed far more than I am.And you don't seem to even realize that.

I think very few people know who I am relative to you, so I don't think I play in the same game.

The media collectively.So, I mean, you're hated.Do you even know that?You probably don't.

I like to think that I'm aware of my own personal shortcomings.and the economist's shortcomings and our worldview's shortcomings.But what we stand for, as you know, is liberal values, traditional, classical liberal values, where we worry about concentrations of power and we believe in the individual and the dignity of the individual.and individual freedom.And I firmly believe that.And I have long thought that you were a classical liberal.

But when I read what you post, classical liberal, JS Mill, limited government, individual freedom.

Yeah, I agree with that.

But when I read what you post on your feed, I sometimes wonder whether you really do believe in that.

I literally said, look, I believe in safe cities, secure borders, and sensible spending with respect to government.That doesn't make me right -wing at all, in the least.

Does the U .S.or do European countries score better on those?

The U .S.

is better.No.Safe cities, much more dangerous in the U .S.than the U .K.

Sensible spending, bigger deficit here, out of control, you failed to reduce it.Secure borders, now under the Trump administration, I agree with you, before not.But on two out of three, unequivocally, Europe is in a better place, yet you seem to paint a picture of Europe being a hellhole.I don't think Europe's a hellhole.

OK, we can agree on something.When did I ever say that?

Well, the picture you paint of Europe on X is a hellhole.No, you're just making up things.No, I'm not.You're just literally making it up.You say civil war in Britain is inevitable, and then you basically proselytize for this Citizen Vigilante film, which really does paint Europe as a hellhole.It just starts with ominous music, and it says, Europe.

Well, there was out -of -control rape and murder.

It's more dangerous than that.country than it is in Europe.

Where there is danger in this country is because we fail to incarcerate repeat violent offenders.And that's, you know, the classic sort of Soros DA or judges that fail to incarcerate repeat violent offenders.And if somebody gets arrested 50 times, literally, for violent crimes, and eventually they're going to kill somebody.So you either incarcerate them or people will die.

I think the prevalence of guns has quite a lot to do with it, too.I mean, this is a much more dangerous country.Murder rates are much higher in large part because there's so much, there are so many guns.

Well, let me give you an interesting number.There are more people that die in Europe from heat deaths than people that die from gun deaths in America.Why aren't you writing an article about air conditioning?

We've done several on air conditioning, and we had on our cover last week a whole long piece about, you know, why - Pro -air conditioning?Yeah, we're very pro -air conditioning.Okay, good, well, good.Very pro -air, you should read our stuff, absolutely.Credit where it's due.I think you have a view of The Economist that is not entirely accurate, so I will, you come look at England, start reading The Economist, and I will, you know, stand corrected on my criticism of you in this area.

There are many parts of Britain and Europe which are not safe.You can't just walk around.

But there are far more in this country.Far more?

No, I don't think so.

All right, let's go and get my fact checkers to check that.

Yeah, I don't think that's true.

Let's move on from this because I think I've got a sense of why you're doing what you're doing.

The question is not, is America perfect?The question is, does Europe have a serious and growing problem?

The question is, which is more dangerous?That's where we started this.

Europe has a serious and growing problem.I'm not going to say that the United States has no problems.Of course it does.You know, we should all try to address these issues.

We can agree on that.We should all try to address the problems.My point was simply that I think you exaggerate the scale of Europe's problem.

I think people are asleep at the switch and do not realize the magnitude of the issue.

I also think that your interventions, however well -intentioned they may be, risk making Europe's problem a lot worse.

How?

because you are putting your support behind people who are proto -authoritarians, who are not trying simply to make sure there is better integration of Muslims or to secure the borders, but who have very clear fascist tendencies, and you will cause huge divisions within Europe.

I think what you're saying is total fiction.And really, I'm simply saying that Europe has to have secure borders.and should not let in vast numbers of people with views that are antithetical to the accepted views in Europe, and where there will not be some level of safe cultural integration.This is simply common sense.

If all you are saying is Europe should have secure borders, I completely agree with you.Then I have misunderstood what your interventions have been on social media, because that is not what the view I have concluded, not what I would conclude having seen what the people you are supporting and the things you're doing, but if that's your goal, I share your goal that Europe should have secure borders.I think that's perfectly agreeable.That gets me to a question.

Let me explain what the fundamental forcing function here is.for why the borders are not secure, which is when you have a welfare state that provides substantial benefits to anyone who comes there, you create a very powerful economic forcing function for anyone who is below that standard of living to come to Europe.It is an obvious, powerful driving force.And people will come there if their standard of living is, from what they get in Europe, is above where they are elsewhere in the world.It's very basic.

I completely agree with that.Yes.I don't disagree with that.

It's a very basic incentive structure.

Economic conditions, economic influences determine a lot of things.migration.I think asylum is a separate issue, but I think you're absolutely right.There are pressures for migration.However, there are other things that you haven't focused on, which is migration brings a lot of benefits.And it also particularly does so in a continent like Europe, which is a rapidly aging continent.

So we can agree that completely uncontrolled borders are a bad idea.I think Europe benefits from having Immigration controlled immigration brings I'm in favor of immigration.

Obviously, I'd be hypocritical if I wasn't since I'm an immigrant to the United States I'm in favor of immigration if the person immigrating Is going to be a productive member of society If they're going to be honest and if they're not going to mistreat people in that country, they're going to I can agree on all of those Yes, but I think Europe does better on that than you give it credit for that's I think where we disagree, but let's move on Tell me what do you think?

people get most wrong about you?

Well, I mean you get, you just got a whole bunch of things wrong about me.Pretty much everything in the last, just recently.the last 20 minutes, it's all wrong.

So I got, we got, I got wrong, your, your.

Let's not be repetitive here.

Okay.So, so that political side of you people get most wrong.

Yeah.My political views are very, are, are centrist.They're not, uh, far right.And, and, and frankly, calling it far right, I think is an insult, uh, to, uh, to history, an insult to many peoples, and it is an outrageous falsehood.It's completely absurd.I literally have stated my position, which is that, and I've been very clear about this, which is that there need to be secure borders, that if there's an influx of immigrants, they need to be people who will agree with Western ideals, with Western values.

And if they don't, and if there's a long -term growth of people who do not, or in some cases are adamantly opposed to Western values.You are setting yourself up for civil war.This is obvious.A child can see this.But this is not a right -wing view.I'm simply stating reality.

Well, I think we can both agree that evidence will be able to decide which of us is more or less right.And we will find evidence for both of our views in different parts of Europe.The question is what the overall...

I'm very good at predicting the future.I'm not perfect, but I'm very good at predicting the future.My batting average is is very high for a human.But this does have somewhat of a Cassandra effect, where people don't believe that what I'm saying is likely to be true, because I can see into the future, not perfectly, but with a higher probability of success than most people, includingthat people believe to be, in some cases, counterintuitive.Again, I'm not saying I'm always right.

I certainly am not.But my batting average is very good.But this does have, like I said, a Cassandra effect where people don't realize that what I'm saying will come to pass, maybe not exactly in the timing that I thought, but it will come to pass.History will write the verdict, but I think you will see that very little of what I've said is inaccurate, and a super majority of what I've said is very accurate and will come to pass, unless there's some change in direction.

Do you have higher confidence level in your expectations of the future for AI, the first part of our conversation, or the latter part, the political part?

I mean, AI is digital superintelligence.It's called the singularity, like a black hole, because you don't know what's going to happen after that.And it sort of sucks in everything.So I think, really, in terms of the really big macro effects here, AI and robots will really dominate everything.So on a timescale that is less than 10 years.

Which probably renders this other stuff that we've been talking about less important and less relevant.

The AI robotics revolution,will happen sooner than civil war in Britain.I would say civil war in Britain is probably 20 years away and the AI robot singularity is 10 years away.

Hopefully these benign all -powerful AIs will prevent such outcomes.

They probably will.

I don't agree with everything you say, but it's always absolutely fascinating to talk to you.Thank you very much indeed.

You're welcome.I'm not boring.

You're definitely not boring.