Elon Musk: A future worth getting excited about | TED | Tesla Texas Gigafactory interview
发布时间 2022-04-18 00:08:54 来源
摘要
What's on Elon Musk's mind? In this exclusive conversation with head of TED Chris Anderson, Musk details how the radical new innovations he's working on -- Tesla's intelligent humanoid robot Optimus, SpaceX's otherworldly Starship and Neuralink's brain-machine interfaces, among others -- could help maximize the lifespan of humanity and create a world where goods and services are abundant and accessible for all. It's a compelling vision of a future worth getting excited about. (Recorded at the Tesla Texas Gigafactory on April 6, 2022)
Just over a week after this interview was filmed, Elon Musk joined TED2022 for another (live) conversation, where he discussed his bid to purchase Twitter, the biggest regret of his career, how his brain works and more. Watch that conversation here: https://youtu.be/cdZZpaB2kDM
0:14 A future that's worth getting excited about
2:44 The sustainable energy economy, batteries and 300 terawatt hours of installed capacity
7:06 "Humanity will solve sustainable energy."
8:47 Artificial intelligence and Tesla's progress on full self-driving cars
19:46 Tesla's Optimus humanoid robot
21:46 "People have no idea, this is going to be bigger than the car."
23:14 Avoiding an AI dystopia
26:39 The age of abundance
28:20 Neuralink and brain-machine interfaces
36:55 SpaceX's Starship and the mission to build a city on Mars
46:54 "It's the people of Mars' city."
50:14 What else can Starship do and help explore?
53:18 Possible synergies between Tesla, SpaceX, The Boring Company and Neuralink
54:44 Intercontinental travel via Starship
58:41 Being a billionaire
1:02:31 Philanthropy as love of humanity
1:03:39 Population collapse and birth rates as a threat to future of human civilization
1:04:13 Elon's drive
1:06:06 "I think if you want the future to be good, you must make it so."
If you love watching TED Talks like this one, become a TED Member to support our mission of spreading ideas: http://ted.com/membership
Follow TED!
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TEDTalks
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ted
Facebook: http://facebook.com/TED
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/ted-conferences
TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@tedtoks
The TED Talks channel features talks, performances and original series from the world's leading thinkers and doers. Subscribe to our channel for videos on Technology, Entertainment and Design — plus science, business, global issues, the arts and more. Visit http://TED.com to get our entire library of TED Talks, transcripts, translations, personalized talk recommendations and more.
https://youtu.be/YRvf00NooN8
TED's videos may be used for non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons License, Attribution–Non Commercial–No Derivatives (or the CC BY – NC – ND 4.0 International) and in accordance with our TED Talks Usage Policy (https://www.ted.com/about/our-organization/our-policies-terms/ted-talks-usage-policy). For more information on using TED for commercial purposes (e.g. employee learning, in a film or online course), please submit a Media Request at https://media-requests.ted.com
GPT-4正在为你翻译摘要中......
中英文字稿 
You know Musk, great to see you. How are you? Good, how are you? I mean, we're here at the Texas Gigafactory, the day before this thing opens. It's been pretty crazy out there. Thank you so much for making time. Oh, what? Busy day. I would love you to help us kind of cast our minds, I don't know, 10, 20, maybe 30 years into the future. And help us try to picture what it would take to build a future that's worth getting excited about. You've often said it the last time you spoke it, you said that was really just a big driver. It's, you know, you talk about lots of other reasons to do what you're doing, but fundamentally, you want to think about the future and not think that it sucks. Yeah, absolutely. I think in general, you know, there's a lot of discussion of like this problem with that problem. And a lot of people are sad about the future and then they're pessimistic. And I think this is not great. I mean, we really want to wake up in the morning and look forward to the future. We want to be excited about what's going to happen. And life cannot simply be about sort of solving one miserable problem after another. So if you look for 30 years, you know, this year 2050 has been labeled by scientists as this kind of, almost like this doomsday deadline on climate. There's a consensus of scientists, a large consensus of scientists who believe that if we haven't completely eliminated greenhouse gases or offset them completely by 2050, effectively we're inviting climate catastrophe. Do you believe there is a pathway to avoid that catastrophe and what would it look like?
你好，马斯克，很高兴见到你。最近过得怎么样？好的，你呢？嗯，我们在德克萨斯超级工厂，就在这个设施开放的前一天。外面情况相当疯狂。非常感谢你抽出时间来。哦，怎么了？很忙碌的一天。我希望你能帮助我们展望一下未来，也许是10年、20年，甚至是30年后的未来。帮助我们设想一下如何建设一个值得期待的未来。你曾经说过，这是一个非常驱动人的事情。你谈到了很多其他的理由去做你在做的事情，但基本上，你想要思考的是未来，并且不希望它糟糕透顶。是的，当然。我认为一般来说，人们经常讨论各种问题，针对这个问题、那个问题。很多人对未来感到沮丧和悲观。我觉得这不太好。我意味着我们真的希望每天早上醒来都对未来充满期待。我们希望可以为即将发生的事情感到兴奋。生活不能只是一个接着一个地解决问题。所以如果我们展望30年后，科学家们将2050年定义为类似末日的截止日期，与全球气候有关。许多科学家一致认为，如果我们在2050年之前不能完全消除温室气体或者完全抵消它们，那么实际上我们就会引发气候灾难。你是否相信有一条路径可以避免这场灾难，它会是什么样子？
Yeah, yeah. So I am not one of the doomsday people, which makes price. I actually think we're on a good path. But at the same time, I want to caution against complacency. So long as we are not complacent, as long as we have a high sense of urgency about moving towards a sustainable energy economy, then I think things will be fine. So I can't emphasize that not as long as we push hard and are not complacent, the future is going to be great. Don't worry about it. I mean, worry about it, but if you worry about it, ironically, it will be a self-unfulfilling prophecy. So there are three elements to a sustainable energy future. One is obviously a sustainable energy generation, which is primarily wind and solar. There's also hydro, geothermal, I'm actually pro-nuclear. I think nuclear is fine. But it's going to be primarily solar and wind as the primary generation of energy. The second part is you need batteries to store the solar and wind energy because the sun doesn't shine all the time, the wind doesn't blow all the time. So you need a lot of stationary battery packs, and then you need electric transport. So electric cars, electric planes, boats, and then ultimately it's not really possible to make electric rockets, but you can make the propellant use in rockets using sustainable energy. So ultimately we can have a fully sustainable energy economy and it's those three things, solar, wind, stationary battery, electric vehicles.
是的，没错。所以我不是那些预言末日的人之一，这让价格合理。我实际上认为我们正在走上正确的道路。但与此同时，我想警告对自满心态。只要我们不自满，只要我们对迈向可持续能源经济有高度的紧迫感，那么我想一切都会好起来的。所以我想强调的是，只要我们努力推动，不自满，未来会很美好。不要担心。我的意思是，担心一下，但如果你担心的话，具有讽刺意味的是，它将成为一种自我不兑现的预言。所以实现可持续能源未来有三个要素。首先是可持续能源的生产，主要是风能和太阳能。还有水力、地热，我实际上支持核能。我认为核能不错。但主要的发电方式将是太阳能和风能。其次，你需要电池来储存太阳能和风能，因为太阳不总是照耀，风也不总是吹动。所以你需要大量的固定电池组，然后还需要电动交通工具。所以电动汽车、电动飞机、电动船，并且最终虽然不太可能制造电动火箭，但你可以使用可持续能源来制造火箭燃料。所以最终我们可以拥有一个完全可持续的能源经济，就是这三个要素，太阳能、风能、固定电池和电动汽车。
So then what are the limiting factors on progress? The limiting factor really will be battery cell production. So that's going to really be the fundamental rate driver and then whatever the slowest element of the whole lithium-ion battery cell supply chain from mining and the many steps of refining to ultimately creating a battery cell and putting it into a pack, that will be the limiting factor on progress towards sustainability.
那么，进步的限制因素是什么呢？限制因素实际上就是电池电芯的生产。因此，电池电芯的生产率将成为根本性的驱动因素，而整个锂离子电池电芯供应链中最慢的环节，从采矿和多个精炼步骤到最终制造电池电芯并装入电池包，将成为朝着可持续发展进步的限制因素。
Alright, so we need to talk more about batteries because the key thing that I want to understand, like there seems to be a scaling issue here that is kind of amazing and alarming. You have said that you have calculated that the amount of battery production that the world needs for sustainability is 300 terawatt-hours of batteries. That's the end of the. Very rough numbers and I certainly wouldn't invite others to check our calculations because they may arrive at different conclusions.
好的，所以我们需要更多地谈论一下电池，因为我想要理解的关键问题是，这里似乎存在一个令人惊讶和警惕的规模问题。你说过你计算出来，世界为了可持续性所需的电池产量是300兆瓦时。这只是一个非常粗略的数字，我并不邀请其他人验证我们的计算，因为他们可能得出不同的结论。
But in order to transition, not just current electricity production, but also heating and transport, which roughly triples the amount of electricity that you need, it amounts to approximately 300 terawatt-hours of installed capacity. So we need to give people a sense of how big a task that is.
为了实现过渡，不仅需要改变当前的电力生产方式，还需要改变供暖和交通领域的能源使用方式，这将大致使所需电力的数量增加两倍，总计约为300太瓦时的装机容量。因此，我们需要让人们产生对这项任务的巨大规模有所认知。
I mean, here we are, the Gigafactory. This is one of the biggest buildings in the world. What I've read and tell me if this is still right is that the goal here is to eventually produce 100 gigawatt-hours of batteries here a year. We're probably doing more than that, but yes, that's hopefully we get there within a couple of years.
我的意思是，看看我们这里，特斯拉超级工厂。这是世界上最大的建筑之一。根据我所了解到的，这里的目标是最终每年生产100吉瓦时的电池。我们可能已经超过这个目标了，但是是的，希望我们能在几年内实现这个目标。
Right. So that is one. Point-to-point-one terawatt-hours. But that's still one hundredth of what's needed. How much of the rest of that 100 is Tesla planning to take on between, let's say between now and 30, 20, 40, when we really need to see the scale up happen. I mean, these are just guesses. I mean, so please, people just shouldn't hold me to these things. It's not like this is like some. What we're just having is I'll make some like, you know, best guess and then people in five years, there'll be some jerk that writes an article. Elon said this would happen and it didn't happen. He's a liar and a fool. It's very annoying when that happens. So these are just guesses. This is a conversation. I think Tesla probably ends up doing 10% of that roughly.
好的，那就是一个点一兆瓦时。但这仍然只是所需能源的百分之一。特斯拉计划在从现在到2030年、2040年实现大规模扩张的期间，用这100%能源总需求的剩余部分中承担多少呢？这只是猜测。所以，请不要把我说的话当真。就像这只是个会话一样，我只是大致猜测一下，然后五年后，可能会有些讨厌的人写篇文章说“伊隆说过这会发生，但没有发生。他是个骗子和傻瓜。”这种情况非常恼人。因此，这些只是猜测。我认为特斯拉最终可能能完成其中的10%左右。
Let's say 2050, we have this amazing 100% sustainable electric grid made up of some mixture of the sustainable energy sources you talked about. That same grid probably is offering the world really low cost energy, isn't it, compared with now? Yeah. And I'm curious about like, should people, are people entitled to get a little bit excited about the possibilities of that world? People should be optimistic about the future. The humanity will solve sustainable energy. It will happen. If we are, you know, continue to push hard, the future is bright and good from an energy standpoint. And then it will be possible to also use that energy to do carbon sequestration. It takes a lot of energy to pull carbon out of the atmosphere just as it. because in putting it in the atmosphere to release energy. So now, you know, obviously in order to pull it out, you need to use a lot of energy. But if you've got a lot of sustainable energy from wind and solar, you can actually sequester carbon. So you can reverse the CO2, possibly a million of the atmosphere and oceans.
假设到了2050年，我们拥有一个由你所谈论的可持续能源构成的令人惊叹的100%可持续电网。与现在相比，这个电网可能能够为世界提供真的很低成本的能源，是吗？是的。我很好奇，人们是否有权对那个世界的可能性感到兴奋呢？人们应该对未来感到乐观。人类将解决可持续能源问题，这是必然的。如果我们继续努力，未来在能源方面是光明和美好的。而且将有可能利用这种能源进行碳封存。从大气中将碳抽出需要大量能源，就像将碳排放到大气中释放能源一样。因此，现在显然需要大量能源来进行抽碳。但如果你拥有大量来自风能和太阳能的可持续能源，那么你实际上可以封存碳。这样，你就可以逆转可能在大气和海洋中存在的二氧化碳。
And also, you can really have as much fresh water as you want. Earth is mostly water. We should call Earth water. It's 70% water by sofsteria. Now, most of that sea water, but it's still. we just have it to be on the bit that's land. Right. And with energy, you can turn on sea water into irrigation. Yes. Irrigating water or whatever water you need. Yes, absolutely. At very low cost. Things will be good. Things will be good. Yes. And also, the benefits right to this non fossil fuel world where the air is cleaner. Yes, exactly. Yeah, yeah. Because when you burn fossil fuels, there's all these side reactions and toxic gases of various kinds. And I'd like to say sort of little particulates that are bad for your lungs. There's all sorts of bad things that are happening that will go away. Okay. And the sky will be cleaner and quieter. If you're just going to be good.
而且，你可以真正拥有你想要的数量的淡水。地球大部分是水。我们应该称地球为“水星”。它的70%都是水（据Sofsteria统计）。现在，大部分是海水，但是没关系。我们只需要关注陆地上的一小部分。对。而且，通过能源，你可以将海水转化为灌溉水。是的。满足你需要的任何水。是的，绝对没错。而且，成本非常低。事情会变得好起来。事情会变得好起来。对。而且，这对于一个非化石燃料世界有很多好处，空气更清洁。是的，确切地说。是的，是的。因为当你燃烧化石燃料时，会产生各种副反应和有毒气体。我想说，还有一些对你的肺部有害的微小颗粒。有很多糟糕的事情将会消失。好的。天空将变得更加清洁和宁静。如果你变得好起来。
I want us to switch now to think a bit about artificial intelligence. But the segue there, you mentioned how annoying it is when people haul you up for bad predictions in the past. So I'm possibly going to be annoying now. But I'm curious about your timelines and how you predict and how come some things are so amazing on the money and some art.
我希望我们现在切换一下思维，开始讨论一下人工智能。但是顺带提一句，你之前提到当人们针对过去的错误预测而责备你时会很让人恼火。所以现在我可能会让你有点恼火，但我很好奇你对时间的预测以及为什么有些事情预测得非常准确，而有些则未能如愿。
So when it comes to predicting sales of Tesla vehicles, for example, I mean, you kind of been amazing. I think in 2014, when Tesla had sold that year 60,000 cars, you said 2020, I think we will do half a million a year. Yeah, we did almost exactly half a million. You did almost exactly half a million. You were scoffed in 2014 because no one since Henry Ford with the Model T had come close to that kind of growth rate for cars. You were scoffed and you actually hit 500,000 cars and 510,000 or whatever it produced.
所以说到预测特斯拉汽车销售，比如说，你的预测实在太神奇了。我记得在2014年，特斯拉当年销售了6万辆汽车，而你预测2020年的销量将达到50万辆。没错，我们实际销量几乎完全符合这个预测，差不多是50万辆。2014年人们对你的预测表示怀疑，因为自从亨利·福特的T型车以来，没有任何汽车制造商能够接近那样的增长率。但实际上，你实现了50万辆汽车的销售，甚至还多出来10,000辆。
But five years ago, last time you came to town, I asked you about full self-driving. You said, yeah, this very year, I am confident that we will have a car going from LA to New York without any intervention. Yeah, I don't want to blow your mind, but I'm not always right. But so talk about what's the difference between those two. Why has full self-driving in particular been so hard to predict?
但是五年前，上次你来这个城市的时候，我问过你关于全自动驾驶的事情。你说，没错，就在这一年，我有信心我们会有一辆车从洛杉矶到纽约完全无需干预。嗯，我并不想让你感到震惊，但我并不总是对的。那么就谈谈这两者之间的区别吧。为什么全自动驾驶特别难以预测呢？
The speaker is explaining a conversation that took place five years ago, during which he asked about the progress of full self-driving technology. The person being addressed had expressed confidence that within the same year, a car would be able to drive from Los Angeles to New York without any human intervention. The speaker acknowledges that not all predictions come true and proceeds to discuss why predicting the development of full self-driving technology has been particularly challenging.
The thing that really got me and I think it's going to get a lot of other people is that there are just so many false storms with self-driving, where you think you've got the problem, have a handle on the problem, and then it turns out you just hit a ceiling. Because if you were to plot the progress, the progress looks like a log curve. So it's like a series of log curves. So most people don't want to log curve business, but it goes up sort of a fairly straight way and then it starts tailing off. And you start getting diminishing returns. And you're like, oh, it was trending up and now it's sort of curving over and not. And you start getting to these what I call local maxima, where you don't realize basically how dumb you were. And then it happens again. And ultimately, in retrospect, they seem obvious.
事实上，让我感到困惑的事情，我相信很多人也会有同样的感受，就是在自动驾驶领域存在太多虚假的突破，你以为已经掌握了问题的关键，却发现自己只是碰到了瓶颈。因为如果你将进展画成曲线，这个曲线看起来像是对数曲线。所以可以说是一系列的对数曲线。所以大多数人并不希望经营一家对数曲线的企业，但它一开始会以相对平滑的方式上升，然后开始逐渐减速。你会觉得，哦，它一直在上升，但现在开始弯曲，没有再增长。而且你会达到所谓的局部极大值，你没有意识到自己有多愚蠢。然后它会再次发生。最终，回顾过去，那些问题看起来似乎显而易见。
But in order to solve full self-driving, probably you have to solve real world AI. Because you say, what other networks designed to work with? The designs work with a biological neural net, our brains, and with vision, our eyes. And so in order to make it work with computers, you basically need to solve real world AI and vision. Because we need cameras and silicon neural nets in order to have self-driving work for a system that was designed for eyes and biological neural nets.
为了解决全自动驾驶问题，可能需要先解决真实世界的人工智能问题。因为你说，其他网络是为何设计而存在的呢？ 这些设计是为了与生物神经网络，也就是我们的大脑，以及我们的视觉系统相匹配。所以，为了让计算机适应这些设计，基本上需要解决真实世界的人工智能和视觉问题。因为我们需要摄像头和硅神经网络，以使自动驾驶适用于一个最初为视力和生物神经网络设计的系统。
I guess when you put it that way, it's sort of quite obvious that the only way to solve full self-driving is to solve real world AI and sophisticated vision. What do you feel about the current architecture? Do you think you have an architecture now where there is a chance for the logarithmic curve not to tell off any time soon?
我想，如果你这样说的话，解决完全自动驾驶的唯一方法就是解决现实世界的人工智能和复杂视觉问题，这似乎是相当明显的。你对当前的架构有何感想？你认为现在的架构是否有可能在不久的将来不受对数曲线的影响？
Well, I mean, admittedly, these may be an infamous last words, but I actually am confident that we will solve it this year. That we will exceed, you're saying the probability of an accident, what points do you exceed that of the average person? I think we will exceed that this year. What are you seeing behind the scenes that gives you that confidence?
嗯，我的意思是，诚然，这可能是一个臭名昭著的最后的话，但是我真的相信我们今年会解决这个问题。你说我们将超过发生事故的概率，有哪些方面超过了普通人的水平？我认为今年我们会超过这些。你在幕后看到了什么让你有这样的信心呢？
Or almost at the point where we have a high-quality unified vector space. In the beginning, we were trying to do this with image recognition on individual images. But if you look at one image out of a video, it's actually quite hard to see what's going on with that ambiguity. But if you look at a video segment of a few seconds of video, that ambiguity resolves. So the first thing we had to do was tie all eight cameras together so they're synchronized. So all the frames are looked at simultaneously and labeled simultaneously by a one person, because we still need human labeling. So at least they're not labeled at different times by different people in different ways. So it's sort of a surround picture.
差不多到了我们拥有高质量统一向量空间的阶段。刚开始，我们尝试在单个图像上进行图像识别来实现这一点。但如果你在一个视频中看到一张图片，很难准确看清其中的情况。但如果你观看几秒钟的视频片段，这种模糊就会得到解决。因此，我们首先必须将所有八个摄像头捆绑在一起，以便它们同步工作。这样所有帧都可以同时被一个人观察并标记，因为我们仍然需要人工标记。至少它们不是在不同时间点由不同的人以不同的方式进行标记。所以它就像是一个全景图片。
Then a very important part is to add the time dimension so that you're looking at surround video and your labeling surround video. And this is actually quite difficult to do from a software standpoint. We had to write our own labeling tools and then create an order labeling. Create order labeling software is to amplify the efficiency of human labels, because it's quite hard to label. But in the beginning, it was taking several hours to label a 10-second video clip. This is not scalable. So basically, what you have to have is you have to have surround video, and that surround video has to be primarily automatically labeled with humans just being editors and making slight corrections to the labeling of the video. And then feeding back those corrections into the future order labeler so you get the spy wheel, eventually where the order labeler is able to take in best amounts of video and with high accuracy automatically label the video for cars, lane lines, drive space.
然后，一个非常重要的部分是添加时间维度，这样你就可以查看周围的视频并对其进行标记。从软件角度来看，实际上这是非常困难的。我们不得不编写自己的标记工具，然后创建一个有序的标记。创建有序的标记软件是为了提高人工标记的效率，因为标记工作很难。但是一开始，标记一个10秒的视频片段需要花费几个小时的时间。这是不可扩展的。所以基本上，你所需要的是周围的视频，并且该周围的视频必须主要由人自动标记，人只需作为编辑者对视频的标记进行轻微的修正。然后将这些修正反馈到未来的有序标记工具中，这样你就可以逐渐实现一个有序标记者，能够以高准确度自动标记汽车、车道线和行驶空间等大量视频。
And what you're saying is that you think the result of this is that you're effectively giving the car a 3D model of the actual objects that are all around it. It knows what they are, and it knows how fast they are moving. And the remaining task is to predict what the quirky behaviors are, that when a pedestrian is walking down the road with a smaller pedestrian, that maybe that smaller pedestrian might do something unpredictable or things like that, you have to build into it before you can really call it safe.
你的意思是，通过这样做，你相信结果就是将实际周围物体的三维模型赋予了汽车。它知道这些物体是什么，也知道它们的移动速度。剩下的任务就是预测可能会出现的怪异行为，例如当一名行人与一个较小的行人一起走在路上时，也许这个较小的行人会做出一些不可预测的动作之类的。在你真正称之为安全之前，你必须将这些情况考虑进去。
You basically need to have memory across time and space. So what I mean by that is because the memory can't be infinite because it's using up a lot of computers around, basically. So you have to say how much are you going to try to remember? It's very common for things to be occluded. So if you talk about a pedestrian walking past a truck where you saw the pedestrian start on one side of the truck, then they're occluded by the truck. But you would know intuitively, okay, that pedestrian is going to pop out the other side most likely. And if you don't know, you slow down.
基本上你需要具备对时间和空间有记忆力的能力。所以我的意思是，由于记忆不能无限扩展，因为它在很多计算机上都在使用。因此，你必须确定要记住多少内容。遮挡是很常见的情况。例如，当你描述一个行人走过一辆卡车时，你可能看到行人从卡车的一侧开始，随后被卡车遮挡。但是你会直觉地知道，这名行人很可能会从另一侧出现。而如果你不确定，你会减速慢行。
I mean a skeptic is going to say that every year for the last five years, you've kind of said, well, no, this is the year. We're confident that we're there in a year or two. It's always been about that far away. But we've got a new architecture now. You're seeing enough improvement behind the scenes to make you not certain, but pretty confident that this, by the end of this year, not in every city, in every circumstance, but in many cities and circumstances, basically the car will be able to drive without interventions safer than a human.
我的意思是，一个怀疑者可能会说，过去五年里，你每年都会说，“不，今年是个契机，我们有信心明年或后年就能实现。”但事实总是离那个目标有一段距离。但我们现在有了新的架构。你在幕后看到了足够的改进，让你不确定，但相当有信心，到今年年底，在许多城市和情况下，基本上汽车将能够在没有干预的情况下比人类驾驶更安全地行驶。
Yes, I mean, the car currently drives me around Austin most of the time with no interventions. So it's not like, and we have over 100,000 people in our full stop driving B.A. program. So you can look at the videos that they post online. Okay, great. Some of them are great, and some of them are a little terrifying, occasionally. The car seems to sort of veer off and scatter hell out of people. That's still better. But behind the scenes, looking at the data, you're seeing enough improvement to believe that this year timeline is real.
是的，我的意思是，这辆车现在大部分时间都能在奥斯汀带我出行，没有出现过任何干预。所以不是像我们在B.A.项目中有超过100,000人在开车。你可以看看他们在网上发布的视频。嗯，很棒。其中有些很棒，但有些偶尔会有些可怕。这辆车似乎会偏离道路，让人吓出一大跳。尽管如此，情况还是比较好的。但通过查看数据的幕后，我们看到了足够的改进，相信这个一年的时间表是真实的。
Yes, that's what it seems like. I mean, I could be here talking again in a year. Well, another year went by and it didn't happen, but I think this is the year. And so in general, when people talk about Elon time, it sounds like you can't just have a general rule that if you predict that something will be done in six months, actually what we should imagine is it's going to be a year or it's like two x or three x. It depends on the type of prediction. Some things, I guess things involving software, you know, AI, whatever, are fundamentally harder to predict than others.
是的，看起来是这样。我的意思是，明年的这个时间我可能还在这里再次讲这些话。好吧，又过了一年，但并没有发生，但我认为今年就是时候了。所以一般来说，当人们谈到艾伦时间时，听起来似乎不能简单地有一个一般规则，即如果你预测某件事会在六个月内完成，实际上我们应该想象它会需要一年或者是两倍或者是三倍的时间。这取决于预测的类型。我猜其中一些事情，像涉及软件、人工智能等等，比其他事情更难预测。
Is there an element that you actually deliberately make aggressive prediction timelines to drive people to be ambitious? Without that, nothing gets done. Well, I generally believe in terms of internal timelines that we want to set, set the most aggressive timeline that we can, because it's sort of like a law of gas expansion for schedules, where whatever time you set, it's not going to be less than that. It's very rare that it will be less than that.
你是否有一个元素，实际上有意制定具有挑战性的预测时间表来激励人们变得有雄心？如果没有这个元素，就什么都无法完成。嗯，就内部时间表而言，我通常认为我们想要设定最具挑战性的时间表，因为这有点像日程安排的气体膨胀定律，你设定的时间不会少于它。很少情况下比它更短。
As far as my predictions are concerned, what has to happen in the media is that there were report all the wrong ones and ignore all the right ones. Right. Or when writing an article about me, I've had a long career in multiple industries. If you list my sins, I sound like the worst person on earth, but if you put those against the things I've done right, it makes much more sense. You know, so essentially, like the longer you do anything, the more mistakes that you will make cumulatively, which, if you sum up those mistakes, will sound like I'm the worst predictor ever.
就我预测而言，在媒体上发生的情况是错误的报导都会被报道，而正确的则会被忽视。没错。或者在写关于我的文章时，我在多个行业有了很长的职业生涯。如果你列举我的过错，我会听起来像是世界上最糟糕的人，但是如果加以对比我所做的正确事情，就更有意义了。你知道，实际上，无论你做任何事情的时间越长，你积累的错误也就越多，把这些错误加起来，听起来我可能是有史以来最糟糕的预测人。
But for example, for Tesla vehicle growth, I said, I think we're 50% and we've done 80%. Yes. But they don't mention that one. So, I don't know what my exact track record is on predictions. They're more optimistic than pessimistic, but they're not all optimistic. Some of them are exceeded probably more or later, but they do come true. It's very rare that they do not come true. It's sort of like, you know, if there's some radical technology prediction, the point is not that it was a few years late, but that it happened at all. That's the more important part.
举例来说，关于特斯拉车辆的增长，我曾经说过，我认为我们已经完成了50%，实际上我们已经做到了80%。是的，但他们没有提到这一点。所以，我不知道我的准确记录在预测方面是什么。它们更多是乐观的而不是悲观的，但并不全都是乐观的。其中一些可能会超过一些时间，但它们最终会实现。它们不实现的情况非常罕见。就像你知道的，如果有一些激进的技术预测，重点不是几年的延迟，而是它是否真的发生了。这是更重要的部分。
So it feels like at some point in the last year, seeing the progress on understanding that the Tesla AI understanding the world around it led to a kind of an aha moment. Because you really surprised people recently when you said probably the most important product development going on at Tesla this year is this robot optimus. Many companies out there have tried to put out these robots. They've been working on them for years. And so far, no one has really cracked it. There's no mass adoption, robot in people's homes. There are some in manufacturing, but I would say that no one's really cracked it.
所以感觉在过去的一年里，看到特斯拉人工智能理解周围世界的进展点上，引发了一种恍然大悟的时刻。因为你最近说特斯拉今年最重要的产品研发或许是这个优化机器人，真的让人意外。许多公司尝试推出这些机器人，他们已经经年累月地在研发，但到目前为止，没有人真正做到了。没有机器人大规模应用于人们的家庭，虽然在制造业中有一些，但我想说，还没有人真正做到了。
What is it something that happened in the development of full self-driving that gave you the confidence to say, you know what, we could do something special here? Yeah, exactly. So, you know, it took me a while to sort of realize that in order to solve self-driving, you really needed to solve real world AI. And the point of which you solve real world AI for a car, which is really a robot on four wheels, you can then generalize that to a robot on legs as well.
在全自动驾驶的发展中有什么事情让你有信心说：“你知道吗，我们可以在这里做一些特别的事情？”是的，确实如此。你知道，我花了一段时间才意识到，要解决自动驾驶，你真的需要解决真实世界的人工智能问题。而当你为一辆汽车解决了真实世界的人工智能问题（汽车实际上是一个有四个轮子的机器人），你就可以将这个解决方案推广到一个有腿的机器人身上。
The two hard parts, I think, obviously, it comes to some of the costs and dynamics have shown that it's possible to make quite compelling sometimes alarming robots. Right. So, from a sensors and actuators standpoint, it's certainly been demonstrated by many that it's possible to make a humanoid robot. The things that are currently missing are enough intelligence for the robot to navigate the real world and do useful things without being explicitly instructed. So, the missing things are basically real world intelligence and scaling up manufacturing. Those are two things that Tesla is very good at. And so then we basically just need to design the specialized actuators and sensors that are needed for a humanoid robot.
我认为，显然，其中两个难点是成本和动力学方面的问题。并且已经显示出有时可以制造出非常引人入胜、有时又令人担忧的机器人。对于传感器和执行器而言，许多人已经证明制造出人形机器人是可行的。目前缺少的是使机器人能够在现实世界中导航并自动执行有用任务的足够智能。所以，这主要是缺乏真实世界智能和扩大制造规模这两个方面。而特斯拉在这两个方面非常擅长。因此，我们只需设计出适用于人形机器人的专用执行器和传感器即可。
People have no idea. This is going to be bigger than the car. So, let's dig into exactly that. I mean, in one way, it's actually an easier problem than force of driving because instead of an object going along at 60 miles an hour, which if it gets it wrong, someone will die. This is an object that's engineered to only go, what, three or four or five miles an hour. Yeah, walking speed basically. And so, a mistake isn't, there aren't lives at stake. There might be embarrassment at stake.
人们毫无概念。这将比汽车庞大得多。所以，让我们具体深入探讨一下。我的意思是，在某种程度上，这其实是一个比汽车驾驶力学更简单的问题，因为它不是一个以每小时60英里的速度前行的物体，如果出错的话，可能会有人死亡。而是一个被工程设计为只能以多少速度前进的物体？对，大概是三、四或五英里每小时，基本上就是行走速度。所以，一个错误并不会因此造成生命危险，只会有一点尴尬的可能性而已。
So, yeah, I just take it over and. Right. And we're going to rest now and sleep with something. Right. But, so talk about, I mean, I think the first applications you've mentioned are probably going to be manufacturing, but eventually the vision is to have these available for people at home. If you had a robot that really understood the 3D architecture of your house and knew where every object in that house was or was supposed to be and could recognize all those objects, I mean, that's kind of amazing, isn't it? Like, the kind of thing that you could ask a robot to do would be what? Like tidy up? Yeah, absolutely. Or make dinner, I guess, more the long. Take a cup of tea to grandma and show her family pictures. Exactly. Take care of, like, grandmother and make sure, yeah, exactly. When it could recognize, obviously, recognize everyone in the home, could play catch with your kids. Yes.
嗯，是的，我只是接管它。对。现在我们要休息，然后睡一会儿。对。但是，谈谈，我觉得你提到的第一个应用可能是制造业，但最终的目标是让人们在家里也能使用这些机器人。如果你有一个真正理解房子的三维结构并知道房子里每个物体的位置或应该在的位置，并能识别这些物体的机器人，那会很神奇吧？像你可以要求机器人做什么？像整理房间？是的，当然。或者做晚饭，更长远来说。给老奶奶拿杯茶并给她展示家庭照片。确切地说，照顾奶奶，确保一切顺利。当它能够识别家中的每个人，还可以和你的孩子们玩捉迷藏。是的。
I mean, obviously, we need to be careful that this doesn't become a dystopian situation. Like, I think one of the things that's going to be important is to have a localized round ship on the robot that cannot be updated over the air, where, for example, would say, stop, stop, stop, that would. If anyone said that, then the robot would stop, you know, type of thing. And that's not updateable remotely. I think it's going to be important to have safety features like that. Yeah. That sounds wise. And I do think there should be a regulatory agency for AI. I've said this for many years. I don't love being regulated, but I think this is an important thing for public safety. Let's come back to that.
我的意思是，显而易见，我们需要小心，以免这变成一个反乌托邦的情况。比如，我认为重要的一件事是在机器人上放置一个本地化的圆形装置，不能通过空中更新，比如说，如果有人说停止，停止，停止，机器人就会停下来。这是不能远程更新的。我认为有这样的安全功能是很重要的。是的，听起来很明智。我认为应该为人工智能设立一个监管机构。我多年来一直这样说。我不喜欢被监管，但我认为这对公共安全是很重要的。让我们回到这个问题上来。
But I don't think many people have really sort of taken seriously the notion of a robot at home. At the start of the computing revolution, Bill Gates said, there's going to be a computer in every home, and people at the time said, yeah, whatever. Who would even want that? Don't have a computer in our pocket. Do you think there will be, basically, like, say, say 2050 or whatever, that a robot in most homes is what they will be, and people will. Yeah. I think they probably will. .love them account on them. You'll have your own butler, basically. Yeah, you'll have your sort of buddy robot, probably. Yeah. I mean, how much of a buddy? Do you. How many applications do you thought is there? You know, can you have a romantic partner, a sex partner? I mean, it's probably inevitable. I mean, I did promise the internet that I'd make cat goals. We could make a robot cat goal. I mean, I mean, I mean, I'm going to talk about this. I'm going to say it to that. Yeah. So, yeah, I guess it'll be what whatever people want, really, you know.
但我认为很多人并没有真正认真对待在家里拥有机器人的想法。在计算机革命开始时，比尔·盖茨曾说，每个家庭都会有一台电脑，当时的人们说，是的，无论如何。谁会想要那个？我们不需要口袋里有个电脑。你认为在大约2050年的时候，大部分家庭里都会有机器人吗？人们会喜欢它们并依赖它们吗？我认为他们很可能会。你将拥有你自己的管家，基本上就是这样。是的，你可能会有一个伙伴机器人。实际上，你的伙伴有多亲密？有多少应用程序你认为是可能的？你知道，可以有一个浪漫伴侣，性伴侣吗？这可能是不可避免的。我曾经承诺过互联网我会制作猫目标。我们可以制作一个机器猫目标。我的意思是，我是要谈论这个的。我会告诉他们的。是的，所以，我猜最终还是取决于人们的需求，你知道。
What sort of timeline should we be thinking about of the first models that are actually made and sold? Well, you know, the first units that we tend to make are for jobs that are dangerous, boring, repetitive, and things that people don't want to do. And, you know, I think we'll have, like, an interesting prototype sometime this year. We might have something useful next year, but I think quite likely within at least two years. And then we'll see rapid growth year over year of the usefulness of the human-wide robots and decreasing costs and scaling up production.
我们应该考虑什么样的时间表，才能实际制造和销售第一批模型呢？嗯，你知道，我们通常制造的第一批产品是用于危险、枯燥、重复、人们不愿意做的工作。而且，我认为我们可能会在今年内有一个有趣的原型。明年可能会有一些有用的东西，但至少在两年内应该很有可能。然后，我们将看到人形机器人的实用性和生产成本逐年增长，生产规模也在扩大。
Initially, just selling to businesses or when you do picture your cell, you'll start selling them where you can buy your parents one for Christmas or something. I'll tell you, I listened 10 years. Yeah.
最初，仅仅是向企业销售，或者当你想象自己的手机时，你会开始在能买给父母作为圣诞礼物之类的地方销售它们。我告诉你，我听了10年。 是的。
How are you on the economics of this? So, what do you picture the cost of one of these being? Well, I think the cost is actually not going to be crazy high, like less than a car. Initially, things will be expensive because it'll be a new technology at low production volume. The complexity and cost of a car is greater than that of a human-wide robot. So, I would expect that it's going to be less than a car or at least equivalent to a cheap car. So, even if it starts at 50k, within a few years, it's down to 20k or lower or whatever. And maybe for home, they'll get much cheaper still, but think about the economics of this. If you can replace a $40,000, $40,000 a year worker, which you have to pay every year, with a one-time payment of $25,000 for a robot that can work longer hours. A pretty rapid replacement of certain types of jobs.
你对这个经济问题了解多少？所以，你认为这个东西的成本会是多少？我认为成本实际上不会很高，比汽车还要低。起初，由于生产量不大，这项新技术会很昂贵。汽车的复杂性和成本大于人形机器人。所以，我预计成本会低于汽车，或者至少与廉价汽车相当。所以，即使起价为5万美元，几年内会降至2万美元或更低，或者其他什么价位。而且或许针对家庭使用的机器人会更便宜，但是请考虑一下这个经济问题。如果你可以用2.5万美元购买一个机器人，可以工作更长时间，取代需每年支付4万美元薪水的员工。这将迅速替代某些类型的工作。
How worried should the world be about that? I wonder what about the sort of people out of a job thing. I think we're actually going to have, and already do have, a massive shortage of labor. So, I think we will have not people out of work, but actually still a shortage of labor, even in the future. But this really will be a world of abundance. Any goods and services will be available to anyone who wants them. It'll be so cheap to have goods and services, it'll be ridiculous. And presumably it should be possible to imagine a bunch of goods and services that can't profitably be made now, but could be made in that world courtesy of legions of robots. Yeah. It will be a world of abundance. The only scarcity that will exist in the future is that which we decide to create ourselves as humans.
世界应该对此多么担心呢？我想到那些失业的人们会怎么样。我认为我们实际上将会，而且现在已经存在劳动力严重短缺的问题。所以，我认为我们将不再有失业的人，而实际上还会继续存在劳动力短缺，即使在未来也是如此。但这将是一个物质丰富的世界。任何人想要的商品和服务都将可获得。拥有商品和服务将变得如此便宜，以至于荒谬。而且可以想象到在那个世界里，会有一些目前无法盈利但却可以由大批机器人制造的商品和服务。是的，这将是一个物质丰富的世界。唯一在未来存在的稀缺是我们作为人类自己决定创造出来的稀缺。
Okay. So, AI is allowing us to imagine a differently powered economy that will create this abundance. What are you most worried about going wrong? Well, like I said, AI and robotics will bring out what might be the age of abundance. Other people have fused this word. And this is my prediction of being age of abundance for everyone. I guess the dangers would be the artificial general intelligence or digital super intelligence decouples from a collective human will and goes in the direction that for some reason we don't like, whatever direction might go. That's sort of the idea behind Neuralink is to try to more tightly couple collective human will to the digital super intelligence. And also along the way solve a lot of brain injuries and spinal injuries and that kind of thing. So even if it doesn't succeed in the greater goal, I think it will succeed in the goal of alleviating brain and spine damage.
好的。所以，人工智能让我们可以想象一个不同动力的经济，从而创造出丰富充裕。你最担心出现什么问题？嗯，就像我说的，人工智能和机器人将带来可能是充裕时代。其他人已经将这个词融合了起来。这就是我对于每个人都能享受充裕时代的预测。我想，危险可能在于人工通用智能或数字超级智能与集体人类意愿脱离联系，并走向某种我们不喜欢的方向，不论这个方向可能是什么。这就是Neuralink背后的想法，试图更紧密地将集体人类意愿与数字超级智能联系起来。在此过程中，还能解决很多脑损伤和脊椎损伤等问题。所以即使它在更大的目标上不成功，我认为它将在缓解脑部和脊椎损伤的目标上取得成功。
So the spirit there is that if we're going to make these AIs that are so vastly intelligent, we ought to be wired directly to them so that we ourselves can have those superpowers more directly. But that doesn't seem to avoid the risk that those superpowers might turn ugly in an unintended way. No, I think it's a risk. I agree. I'm not saying that I have some certain answer to that risk. I'm just saying like maybe one of the things that would be good for ensuring that the future is one that we want is to more tightly couple a human will collective human will to digital intelligence.
所以，其核心思想是，如果我们要制造出如此强大智能的人工智能，我们应当直接与其连接，这样我们自己就能更直接地拥有超能力。但这似乎无法避免超能力可能以意想不到的方式变得恶劣的风险。是的，我认为这是一种风险。我同意。我并不是说我对这种风险有某种确定的答案。我只是在说，或许将人类意愿与数字智能更紧密地结合在一起，是确保未来朝着我们期望的方向发展的一种良好途径之一。
The issue that we face here is that we're already a cyborg if you think about it. The computers are an extension of ourselves. And when we die, we have like a digital ghost. You know, one of our text messages and social media emails. It's quite eerie actually when someone dies and everything online is still there. But you say like what's the limitation? What is it that inhibits human machines and viruses? It's the data rate. When you communicate, especially with a phone, you're moving your thumbs very slowly. So you're moving to two little meat sticks at a rate that's maybe 10 bit per second, optimistically 100 bits per second.
我们在这里面临的问题是，如果你仔细思考的话，我们已经是一个半机械人了。计算机是我们自身的延伸。而且当我们死去时，我们就像是有一个数字化的幽灵。你知道的，我们的短信、社交媒体和电子邮件都还在那里。实际上，当有人去世后，网上的一切仍然存在，这真的很诡异。但你可能会问，有什么限制呢？是什么阻碍了人类、机器和病毒的发展？那就是数据传输速率。当你通信时，特别是使用手机时，你的大拇指移动得很慢。所以你只能以每秒10个比特、乐观地说每秒100个比特的速度来传输数据。
And computers are communicating at the gigabit level beyond. Have you seen evidence that the technology is actually working, that you've got a richer sort of higher bandwidth connection if you like between external electronics and a brain than has been possible before? Yeah. So the, I mean, the fundamental principles of reading neurons during read-write on neurons with tiny electrodes have been demonstrated for decades. So it's not like this is the concept is new. The problem is that there's no product that works well that you can go and buy. So it's all sort of in research labs. And it's not, there's always like some cord sticking out of your head and it's quite gruesome. And it's really, there's no good product that actually does a good job. And is high bandwidth and safe. And something you'd actually, that you could buy and would want to buy.
那么计算机之间已经开始以吉比特的速度进行通信了。你看到了技术实际上确实起作用的证据吗？你认为现在在外部电子设备和大脑之间的连接是否更加丰富，带宽更高？是的。我是说，通过使用微小电极读取和写入神经元的基本原理已经在几十年间得到了证明。所以并不是说这个概念是新的。问题在于没有一个好用的产品可以买到。目前一切都还停留在研究实验室阶段。而且，总是有一根接头从你的头上伸出来，看起来相当恐怖。而且没有一个真正好用、带宽高并且安全的产品。一个你实际上可以购买并且愿意购买的产品。
So, but in it, the way to think of the neural device is kind of like a Fitbit or an Apple Watch that's where we take out a sort of a small section of scale about the size of a quarter. And replace that with what in many ways really is very much like Fitbit, Apple Watch or some kind of smartwatch thing. And, but with tiny, tiny wires, very, very tiny wires. To wire so tiny, it's hard to even see them. And it's very important to have very tiny wires that when they're implanted, they don't damage the brain.
因此，但在其中，思考神经设备的方式有点像是Fitbit或Apple Watch，我们会将大约一枚25美分大小的小片移除，然后用在很多方面上非常类似于Fitbit、Apple Watch或某种智能手表的东西来替换。但是，使用的是非常非常小的线，非常非常细的线。这些线非常细小，甚至很难看见。当植入时，使用非常细小的线是非常重要的，以避免对大脑造成损害。
How far are you from putting these into humans? Well, we have put in our FDA application to have the aspirationally do the first human applied this year. The first uses will be for neurological injuries of different kinds. Yes. But rolling the clock forward and imagining when people are actually using these for their own enhancement, let's say, for the enhancement of the world. How clear are you in your mind as to what it will feel like to have one of these inside your head? Well, I do want to have sides where we're at an early stage. And so it really will be many years before we have anything approximating a high bandwidth neural interface that allows for AI human symbiosis. And for many years, we will just be solving brain injuries and spinal injuries for probably a decade. This is not something that will suddenly, one day, it will have this incredible sort of whole brain interface. It's going to be, like I said, at least a decade of really just solving brain injuries and spinal injuries. And really, I think you can solve a very wide range of brain injuries, including severe depression, morbid obesity, sleep, potentially schizophrenia. Like a lot of things that cause great stress to people restoring memory in older people. If you can pull that off, that's the app I will sign up for. Absolutely. Please hurry. Yeah. I mean, the emails that we get at Neuralink are heartbreaking. I mean, they'll send us just tragically, you know, where someone was sort of in the prime of life and they had an accident on a motorcycle. And someone who's 25 is, you know, it can't even feed themselves. And this is something we could fix.
你距离将这些应用到人类身上还有多远？好的，我们已经提交了FDA申请，希望今年能够做出第一次人体应用尝试。首次使用将会用于不同种类的神经损伤。是的。但如果将时间向前推进，想象人们真正用这些来增强自己，比如说用于改变世界。你对头脑中有这样一个装置会有何感受有多清楚呢？嗯，我想要指出我们还处在早期阶段。所以在我们拥有类似于高带宽的神经接口，并实现人工智能与人类的共生之前，还需要很多年。而在接下来的很多年里，我们可能只会解决大脑损伤和脊髓损伤的问题，可能还需要十年左右的时间。这并不是说会突然间有一个令人难以置信的完整脑部接口，至少在接下来的十年里，我们真正要做的只是解决大脑和脊髓损伤的问题。而且我相信它可以解决很多种类的大脑损伤，包括严重抑郁症、病态肥胖、失眠和可能的精神分裂症等。恢复老年人的记忆也是一个巨大的压力来源，如果我们能做到这一点，我会毫不犹豫地报名参加。绝对，请快点。是的。我是说我们在Neuralink收到的电子邮件真是让人心碎。我是说有些邮件里讲述的故事真令人悲伤，有人从容颐乐的生活转瞬间就因为摩托车事故而变得无法自理。而这是我们可以解决的问题。
But you have said that AI is one of the things you're most worried about and that Neuralink may be one of the ways where we can keep abreast of it. Yes. There's the short term thing which I think is helpful on an individual human level with injuries. And then the long term thing is an attempt to address the civilizational risk of AI by bringing digital intelligence and biological intelligence closer together. I mean, if you think of the how the brain works today, there are really kind of two layers of the brain. There's the limbic system and the cortex. You've got the kind of animal brain where it's kind of like the fun part, really. That's why most of Twitter operates, by the way. Yeah, I mean, I think like Tim Oven said this, we're like somebody stuck a computer on a monkey. You know, so if you gave a monkey a computer, that's not cortex. But we still have a lot of monkey instincts. Right.
但你曾说过，人工智能是你最担心的事情之一，而Neuralink可能是我们能够跟上这一发展的方式之一。是的。就个体人类来说，短期来看，我认为这是有益的，特别是对于受伤的人。而长期来看，我们试图通过将数字智能和生物智能更加紧密地结合起来来应对人工智能对文明的风险。我的意思是，如果你想想大脑的工作方式，实际上有两个层面。有大脑边缘系统和皮质。你有那种动物大脑，实际上是最有趣的那部分。顺便说一下，这也是Twitter的大部分操作方式。是的，我指的是，我觉得蒂姆·奥文(Tim Ovens)说过这样的话，我们就像给猴子安了一台电脑一样。你知道的，如果你给一只猴子一台电脑，那不是皮质。但我们仍然保留着很多猴子的本能。对，没错。
So we should then try to rationalize this. No, it's not a monkey instinct. It's something more important than that. But it's often just really a monkey instinct. We're just monkeys with a computer stuck in our brain. So even though the cortex is sort of the smart or the intelligent part of the brain, the thinking part of the brain, people are quite, I've not yet met anyone who wants to delete the limbic system or their cortex. They're quite happy having both. Everyone wants both parts of their brain. And people really want their phones and their computers, which are really the tertiary, the third part of your intelligence.
所以我们应该尝试去理性化这个问题。不，这不是猴子的本能。它比那更重要。但实际上它往往只是一种猴子的本能而已。我们只是带着一台计算机被塞进我们脑子里的猴子。尽管皮层是大脑的聪明或智能部分，思考的部分，但是我还没有遇到任何一个想要删除大脑的边缘系统或皮层的人。他们对拥有两个大脑部分都很满意。人们真的想要他们的手机和电脑，它们实际上是你智慧的第三部分。
It's like, say, the bandwidth, the rate of communication with that tertiary layer is slow. And it's just a very tiny stroll to this tertiary layer. And we want to make that tiny stroll a big highway. And I'm definitely not saying that this is going to solve everything. Or this is, you know, it's the only thing. It's something that might be helpful. And worst case scenario, I think we solve some important brain injury, spinal injury issues. And that's still a great outcome.
这就好像是说，与该第三层通信的带宽，通讯速度很慢。而只需经过一个非常微小的过程，就能到达这个第三层。我们想要把这个微小的过程变成一条主干道。我绝对不是说这样就能解决所有问题，或者这是唯一的方法。这可能会有所帮助。即使最坏的情况下，我认为我们依然解决了一些重要的脑损伤和脊髓损伤问题。这仍然是一个很好的结果。
Right. Best case scenario, we may discover new human possibility telepathy you've spoken of in a way. So it's a little bit. With a loved one, you know, full memory and much faster thought process than maybe. All these things. It's very cool. If AI were to take down Earth, we need to plan B. Let's shift our attention to space.
对。最理想的情况是，我们可能会以某种方式发现你所说的新的人类可能性——心灵感应。所以这只是一点点。和所爱的人在一起，你知道，完整的记忆和比以往更快的思维过程。这些都是非常酷的事情。如果人工智能将地球摧毁，我们需要有备选方案。让我们把注意力转向太空。
We spoke last time about reusability. And you had just demonstrated that spectacular for the first time. Since then, you've gone on to build this monster rocket and starship, which kind of changes the rules of the game in spectacular ways. Tell us about Starship.
我们上次谈到过可重复使用性的问题。你当时第一次展示了惊人的成果。此后，你继续建造了这个庞然大物航天器——星际飞船，它以一种惊人的方式改变了游戏规则。告诉我们一些关于星际飞船的事吧。
Starship is extremely fundamental. So the holy grail of rocketry or space transport is full and rapid reusability. This has never been achieved. The closest that anything that's come is our Falcon Man rocket where we are able to recover the first stage, the boost stage, which is probably about 60% of the cars of the vehicle or the whole launch. Maybe 70%. And we've not done that over 100 times. So with Starship, we will be recovering the entire thing. At least that's the goal. And more of a recovering it in such a way that it can be immediately reflowed. Whereas with Falcon Man, we still need to do some amount of refurbishment to the booster and to the ferry when it was cone. But with Starship, the design goal is immediate reflate. So you just refill propellants and go again. And this is gigantic. It just as it would be in any other mode of transporting.
星舰是极其基本的。所以火箭学和太空运输的圣杯就是全面而迅速的可重复使用。这从未实现过。迄今为止最接近的是我们的猎鹰人火箭，在这里我们能够回收第一级、助推级，这大约是整个飞行器或整个发射的60%或者70%。我们已经做到了超过100次。所以对于星舰，我们将会回收整个飞行器。至少这是目标。而且我们还要设计一种能够立即重新加注燃料的方式来回收它。而对于猎鹰人火箭来说，我们仍然需要对助推器和运载船进行一定程度的翻新，尤其是它的圆锥体。但星舰的设计目标是立即加注燃料。所以你只需重新填充燃料就可以再次发射。这是巨大的。就像在任何其他运输模式中一样。
And the main design is to basically take 100 plus people at a time, plus a bunch of things that they need, two Mars. So first of all, talk about that piece. What is your latest timeline? One for the first time a Starship goes to Mars. Presumably without people, but just equipment. Two with people, three, the sort of, okay, 100 people at a time, let's go.
主要设计的目标是每次带上100多人，以及他们所需的一堆物品去火星。首先，我们来谈谈这个方面。你们的最新时间表是什么？第一次载人星舰去火星的时间是什么？可能是没有人，只是装备。第二次是有人的，第三次则是每次带上100人，出发！
Sure. And just to put the cost thing into perspective, the cost of, the expected cost of Starship putting 100 tons into orbit is significantly less than what it would have cost, or what it did cost to put out our tiny Falcon 1 rocket into orbit. Just as the cost of flying a 747 around the world is less than the cost of a smaller plane. A smaller airplane that was thrown away. So it's really pretty mind-boggling that the giant thing costs less, way less than the small thing.
当然。为了让成本问题更加明确，星际飞船预计将100吨物质送入轨道的成本显著低于我们当初把小型猎鹰1号火箭送入轨道所花费的成本，实际成本也低于之前火箭的成本。就像驾驶波音747绕地球飞行的费用要低于驾驶一架更小的飞机，而这架飞机是一次性使用的。所以令人惊讶的是，这个巨大物体的成本比那个小东西要低得多，远远低得多。
So it doesn't use sort of exotic propellants or things that are difficult to obtain on Mars. It uses methane as fuel, and it's primarily oxygen. It's sort of roughly 78, 7, 78 percent oxygen by weight. And Mars has a CO2 atmosphere and has water ice, which is CO2 plus H2O. So you can make CH4 methane and O2 oxygen on Mars. There's really one of the first Tarsall Mars will be to create a fuel plant that can create the fuel for the return trips of many Starships.
所以，它并不使用一些在火星上难以获得的外来推进剂。它使用甲烷作为燃料，主要是氧气。大致上来说，它的氧含量约为78，7，78个百分点。而火星具有二氧化碳大气层和水冰，也就是二氧化碳和水混合物。因此，在火星上可以制造甲烷(CH4)和氧气（O2）。第一件关键的任务之一将是建立一个能够为多艘星际飞船的返回旅程提供燃料的燃料生产工厂。
Yes, and actually it's mostly an oxygen plant, but it's because it's called 78 percent oxygen, 22 percent fuel. But the fuel is a simple fuel that is easy to create on Mars, and while many other parts of this whole system. So basically, it's all propulsive landing, no parachutes, nothing thrown away. It has a heat shield that's capable of entering on Earth or Mars. We could even potentially go to Venus, but you don't want to go there. Venus is hell, almost literally. But you could, it's a generalized method of transport to anywhere in the solar system, because the point of which you have a Palantifa on Mars, you can then travel to the asteroid belt and to the winds of Jupiter and then to Saturn, and ultimately anywhere in the solar system.
是的，实际上这主要是一个氧气工厂，但这是因为它含有78%的氧气和22%的燃料。而这种燃料是在火星上很容易制造的一种简单燃料，许多其他部分也是如此。基本上，它是一种完全依赖推进的着陆方式，没有降落伞，没有任何被丢弃的东西。它有一种能够在地球或火星进入大气层的热护盾。我们甚至可以潜在地前往金星，但你不会想去那里。金星是地狱，几乎真的是那样。但你可以使用这种通用的太阳系交通方式前往太阳系的任何地方，因为一旦在火星上拥有一个Palantifa，你就可以前往小行星带、飓风星和最终太阳系的任何地方。
Right, but your main focus and SpaceX's main focus is still Mars. That is the mission. That is where most of the effort will go.
没错，但你们的主要关注点和SpaceX的主要关注点仍然是火星。那是使命，那是大部分努力将投入的地方。
Imagine a much broader array of uses, even in the coming, the first decade or so of uses of this. Why we could go, for example, to the solar system to explore, perhaps NASA wants to use the rocket for that reason. NASA is planning to use Starship to return to the Moon, to return people to the Moon. And so we're very honored that NASA has chosen us to do this. But I'm saying it is a generalized, it's a general solution to getting anywhere in the greater solar system. It's not suitable for going to another star system, but it is a general solution for transport anywhere in the solar system.
想象一下更广泛的用途，甚至在接下来的十年或更久的使用中。比如，我们可以去太阳系探索，或许NASA想要使用这艘火箭。NASA计划使用星舰返回月球，将人类送回月球。因此我们非常荣幸NASA选择我们来完成这个任务。但我要说的是，它是一个普遍的解决方案，可以到达太阳系中的任何地方。它不适用于前往另一个恒星系，但它是太阳系中到任何地方的通用解决方案。
Before it can do any of that, it's got to demonstrate it can get into orbit around Earth. What's your latest advice on the timeline for that? It's looking promising for us to have an orbital launch attempt in a few months. We'll be integrating the engines into the booster for the first orbital flight starting in about a week or two. And the launch complex itself is ready to go. So assuming we get regulatory approval, I think we could have an orbital launch attempt within a few months.
在它能达成这一目标之前，首先需要证明其能够进入地球轨道。对于此事，你对时间安排有什么最新建议？我们有望在几个月内进行一次轨道发射尝试。我们将在大约一到两周内将发动机与助推器进行整合，以准备首次轨道飞行。同时，发射场本身也已做好准备。所以只要我们获得监管机构的批准，我认为我们可以在几个月内进行轨道发射尝试。
And a radical new technology like this, presumably there is real risk on those early attempts. The joke I make all the time is that excitement is guaranteed. Success is not guaranteed, but excitement certainly is.
像这样一种激进的新技术，很可能在初次尝试中存在真正的风险。我常常开玩笑说，兴奋是肯定的，但成功并不确定。
The last I saw in your timeline, you've slightly put back the expected date to put the first human on Mars until 2029, I want to say. So we have built a production system for SARS-HIP, so we're making a lot of ships and boosters. How many are you planning to make, actually? We're currently expecting to make a booster and a ship roughly every couple months, and hopefully by the end of this year, one every month. So it's giant rockets and a lot of them.
根据我上次看到的你的时间轴，你好像把首位火星居住者的期望时间推迟到2029年了，我想这样说。所以我们已经建造了一套用于SARS-HIP项目的生产系统，正在制造大量的船只和助推器。实际上，你们计划制造多少艘呢？我们目前计划每隔几个月制造一艘助推器和一艘船只，希望到今年年底能够每个月制造一艘。所以将会是庞大的火箭数量。
Just in talking in terms of rough orders of magnitude, in order to create a self-sustaining city on Mars, I think we'll need something on the order of a thousand ships. We just need a Helen of Sparta, I guess, on Mars.
就谈到大致数量级而言，为了在火星上建立一个自给自足的城市，我认为我们大约需要一千艘飞船。我猜我们在火星上只需要一个斯巴达的海伦。
This is not in most people's heads, Elon. The planet that launched the thousand ships. That's nice. But this is not in most people's heads. This picture that you have in your mind, so there's basically a two-year window. You can only really fly to Mars conveniently every two years. You were picturing that during the 2030s, every couple years, something like a thousand starships take off, each containing a hundred or more. People are like, that picture is just completely mind-blowing to me. That sense of this armada of humans going to.
埃隆，这并不是大多数人的想法。这个发射了无数船只的星球。确实不错。但是这并不是大多数人所想的。你心中所描绘的场景大致是，基本上每两年才能方便地飞往火星。在2030年代时，每隔几年就会有大约一千艘太空飞船起飞，每艘飞船上装载着一百人甚至更多。对于我来说，这个画面完全让人震撼。这种人类船队的感觉。
Yeah, we're like battle-stalked, like, the fleet of the parts.
是的，我们就像是战舰被盯梢一样，就像那些部件的舰队一样。
And you think that it can basically be funded by people spending maybe a hub of a hundred grand on a ticket to meet to Mars. Is that price about where it has been? Well, I think it's like, what's required in order to get enough people and enough cargo to Mars to build a self-sustaining city? And it's where you have an intersection of sets of people who want to go, because I think only a small percentage of humanity will want to go. And can afford to go or get sponsorship in some manner. That intersection of sets, I think, needs to be a million people or something like that. And so it's what can a million people afford or get sponsorship for? Because I think governments will also pay for it and people can take out loans. But I think at the point of which you say, okay, if moving to Mars costs our. .for I'm going to take $100,000, then I think almost anyone can work and save up and eventually have $100,000 and be able to go to Mars if they want. We want to make it available to anyone who wants to go.
你认为基本上它可以由花费大约十万美元在去火星的机票上的人们来资助。这个价格大致是现在的水平吗？我认为这是为了带足够的人和货物前往火星建立一个自给自足的城市所必需的。而这样做需要一个愿意前往的人群的交叉，并且我认为只有人类的一小部分人会愿意去，而且能够负担得起或以某种方式获得资助。我认为这个交叉的人群需要100万人左右。所以这就是100万人能够负担得起或获得资助的金额。因为我认为政府也会出资，而人们也可以贷款购买机票。但是我认为一旦你说，好吧，如果去火星的费用是10万美元，那么几乎任何人都可以工作并节省钱最终拥有10万美元，并且如果他们愿意，他们就可以去火星。我们希望让任何愿意前往的人都能够去。
So it's very important to emphasize that Mars, especially in the beginning, will not be luxurious. It will be dangerous, cramped, difficult, hard work. It's kind of like that Shackleton ad for going to the Antarctic, which I think is actually not real, but it sounds real and it's cool. The sales pitch we're going to Mars is dangerous, it's cramped, you might not make it back. It's difficult, it's hard work. That's the sales pitch.
因此，强调一点非常重要，那就是火星，特别是在最初阶段，并不会豪华。它将是危险、拥挤、困难且需要努力的工作。就像那个去南极洲的沙克尔顿（Shackleton）广告一样，我认为它实际上并不存在，但它听起来很真实，很酷。我们去火星的销售宣传是危险的，拥挤的，你可能无法回来。这是困难的，需要辛勤工作的。这就是销售宣传。
Right. You won't make history. But it'll be glorious.
没错，你不会创造历史。但它将是壮丽的。
Right.
好的。
So on that kind of launch rate, you're talking about over two decades you could get your million people to Mars, essentially. Who city is it? Is it NASA city? Is it SpaceX? It's the people of Mars city.
在这种发射速度下，你需要超过两个十年才能将百万人送往火星。这个城市是谁的？是NASA的城市吗？是SpaceX的城市吗？其实，这是属于火星的人们的城市。
The reason for this, I mean I have to say, well, why do this thing? I think this is important for Max Meissen, the probable lifespan of humanity or consciousness. Human civilization could come to an end for external reasons like giant meteor or super volcanoes or extreme climate change. Or World War III or, you know, anyone of a number of reasons. But the probable lifespan of civilization of consciousness as we know it, which we should really view as this very delicate thing, like a small candle in a vast darkness. That is what appears to be the case.
这个原因，我的意思是，我必须说，为什么要做这件事呢？我认为这对Max Meissen来说很重要，对人类或意识的可能寿命来说也很重要。人类文明可能因为外部原因（如巨大的陨石、超级火山或极端气候变化），或者第三次世界大战，或者许多其他原因而走向终结。但是，我们所知的文明或意识的可能寿命，我们应该将其视为非常脆弱的东西，就像黑暗中的一支小蜡烛。这似乎是情况。
We're in this vast darkness of space. And there's this little candle of consciousness that's only really come about after four and a half billion years. And it could just go out. I think that's powerful. And I think a lot of people will be inspired by that vision.
我们身处于这广阔的黑暗宇宙中。在经过四十五亿年之后，这微小的意识之火才真正出现。而它也可能会熄灭。我认为这是非常有力量的。我相信这个愿景将会激励很多人。
And the reason you need the million people is because there has to be enough people there to do everything that you need to survive. Really, the critical threshold is if the ships from Earth stop coming for any reason, does the Marist City die out or not? So we have to pass, people talk about the great filters, the things that perhaps we talk about the Fermi Paradox and where are the aliens? And like, well, maybe the aliens didn't, there is various great filters that the aliens didn't pass. And so they eventually just cease to exist. And one of the great filters is becoming a multi-planet species. So we want to pass that filter.
而你需要一百万人的原因是因为必须有足够的人来做生存所需的一切事情。实际上，关键的阈值是，如果来自地球的船只因任何原因停止到来，Marist City是否会灭亡？因此我们必须通过，人们谈论伟大的筛选器，也就是我们可能会谈论费米悖论和外星人在哪里？也许外星人没有通过各种伟大的筛选器。所以他们最终就会消失。而成为一个多星球物种就是其中一个伟大的筛选器。所以我们想要通过这个筛选器。
And I'll be long dead before this is, you know, a real real thing. Before it happens. But I'd like to at least see us make a great progress in this direction. Given how tortured the Earth is right now, how much we're beating each other up, shouldn't there be discussions going on with everyone who is dreaming about Mars to try to say, we've got a once, once in a civilisations chance to make some new rules here. Is that, should someone be trying to lead those discussions to figure out what it means for this to be the people of Mars, this city? Well, I think ultimately this will be after the people of Mars to decide what, how they want to rethink society. Yet there's certainly risk there. And hopefully the people of Mars will be more enlightened and will not fight amongst each other too much. I mean, I have some recommendations, but which people of Mars may choose to listen to or not. And I would advocate for more of a direct democracy, not a representative of democracy, and laws that are short enough for people to understand, and where it is harder to create laws than to get rid of them.
在这成为真正真实的事情之前，我早就已经长眠了。在这发生之前。但是我希望至少能看到我们在这个方向上取得很大的进步。考虑到地球现在的困境，我们彼此之间的争斗有多严重，难道不应该与所有梦想着火星的人进行讨论，试图说出来，我们有一次、一次在文明历史中的机会来制定一些新的规则吗？有人应该试图引导这些讨论，弄清楚这对于成为火星人、这座城市来说意味着什么。嗯，我认为最终这将由火星人决定，决定他们希望如何重新构想社会。但当然存在风险。希望火星人能更加开明，不会过多地争斗。我的意思是，我有一些建议，但火星人可以选择听从或不听从。我主张更多的直接民主，而不是代议制民主，以及简单易懂的法律，设定法律要更加困难，而废除它们则更容易。
Coming back a bit near a term, I'd love you to talk about some of the other possibilities space that Starship seems to have created. So given suddenly we've got this ability to move 100 tons plus into orbit. So we've just launched the James Webb Telescope, which is an incredible thing. It's unbelievable. It's an exquisite piece of technology. It's an exquisite piece of technology. But people spent two years trying to figure out how to fold up this thing. It's a three ton telescope. We can make it a lot easier if you've got more volume in Mars. Well, so let's ask a different question, which is how much more powerful a telescope could someone design based on using Starship? For example. I mean, roughly I'd say it's probably an order of magnitude more resolution. If you've got 100 tons and 1000 cubic meters volume, which is roughly what we have.
回到一点离期限较近的地方，我希望你谈谈“星舰”似乎创造出的其他可能性。突然间我们有了把100吨以上物体送入轨道的能力。我们刚刚发射了詹姆斯·韦伯太空望远镜，这是一件不可思议的事情。它是一件精致的技术杰作。人们花了两年的时间来弄清楚如何折叠它，因为它是一台三吨重的望远镜。如果在火星上有更大的空间，我们可以简化这个过程。所以，让我们问一个不同的问题，基于使用“星舰”，有人可以设计出多么强大的望远镜？例如，大致而言，我认为分辨率可能提高一个数量级。如果你有100吨和1000立方米的容积，这大致是我们现在拥有的。
And what about other explorations with the solar system? I mean, I'm, you know. Well, you wrote for some. Right, so there's an ocean there, right? And what you really want to do is to drop a submarine into the ocean. Yeah, maybe there's like some squid civilization under the Sephylopod civilization under the ice of Europa. That would be pretty interesting. I mean, Elon, if you could take a submarine to Europa and we see pictures of the same being devoured by a squid. That would honestly be the happiest moment of our life.
其他对太阳系的探索怎么样呢？我的意思是，就像你知道的那样。嗯，你为一些探索写过东西，对吧？所以那儿有一个海洋对吧？而你真正想做的是把一个潜水艇投放到那个海洋里。是的，也许在木卫二的冰下面有一些乌贼文明，那将会很有趣。我的意思是，如果埃隆能够带一个潜水艇去木卫二，我们能看到那个潜水艇被一只乌贼吞噬的照片，那将是我们一生中最幸福的时刻。
Pretty well, yeah. That would be. What are the possibilities out there? Like, if you're going to create a thousand of these things, they can only fly to Mars every two years. What are they doing the rest of the time? It feels like there's this explosion of possibility that I don't think people are really thinking about. I mean, I don't know. We've suddenly got a long way to go.
相当不错，是的。有哪些可能性呢？比如，如果你要制造一千个这样的东西，它们每两年才能飞往火星。其他时间他们都在做什么呢？感觉好像有这种潜在的爆炸性可能性，我觉得人们并没有真正考虑到。我是说，我不知道。我们突然间还有很长的路要走。
As you alluded to earlier, we still have to get to orbit. And then after we get to orbit, we have to really prove out and refine full and rapid reusability. That'll take a moment. But I do think we will solve this. I'm highly confident we will solve this at this point.
正如你之前所暗示的，我们仍然需要进入轨道。而且在进入轨道之后，我们还需要真正证明和完善完全和快速的可重复使用性。这需要一段时间。但我确信我们将解决这个问题。从现在开始，我非常有信心我们会解决这个问题。
Do you have a wake up with the fear that there's going to be this Hindenburg moment for SpaceX where. We've had many Hindenburg moments. We've never had Hindenburg moments with people, which is a very important big difference. Right, there is. We've blown out quite a few rockets. There's a whole convolutional line that we put together and others put together. It's showing rockets are hard.
你是否有过一种担心，害怕SpaceX会发生类似Hindenburg的时刻的惊醒呢？我们已经经历过许多类似Hindenburg的时刻，但与之前不同的是，这次还关涉到人员，这是非常重要的巨大差异。没错，确实如此。我们的火箭已经爆炸了很多次。我们和其他人都经历了一整段缠绕复杂的过程。这表明火箭很难制造。
I mean, the sheer amount of energy going through rockets is the line. So, you know, getting out of Earth's gravity well is difficult. We have a strong gravity and a thick atmosphere. And Mars, which is less than 40 percent of. It's like 37 percent of Earth's gravity and has a thin atmosphere. The ship alone can go all the way from the surface to Mars to the surface of Earth. Whereas getting too much requires a giant booster and orbital refilling.
我的意思是，喷射火箭所需的能量数量巨大。所以，你知道，摆脱地球的引力井是困难的。我们有强大的地球引力和厚重的大气层。而火星，它的引力只有地球的37%，并且有着稀薄的大气层。单凭飞船就能从地球表面一路飞行到火星表面。而过度的飞行则需要一个巨大的助推器和轨道加注。
So, Elon, is I think more about this incredible array of things that you're involved with. I keep seeing these synergies to use a horrible word between them. You know, for example, the robots you're building from Tesla could possibly be pretty handy on Mars, doing some of the dangerous work and so forth. I mean, maybe there's a scenario where your city on Mars doesn't need a million people. It needs half a million people and half a million robots. Sure. And that's a possibility. Maybe the boring company could play a role, help create some of the subterranean dwelling spaces that you might need. Yeah. Back on planet Earth, it seems like a partnership between boring company and Tesla could offer an unbelievable deal to a city to say we will create a 3D network of tunnels populated by robo taxis that will offer fast low-cost transport to anyone.
所以，埃隆，我认为更多关注的是你参与的这些令人难以置信的事情。我一直看到它们之间有这种可怕的协同效应。你知道，例如，特斯拉正在建造的机器人可能在火星上非常有用，可以完成一些危险的工作等等。我的意思是，也许在火星上，你的城市并不需要一百万人口，而只需要五十万人口和五十万个机器人。当然。这是一种可能性。也许无聊公司可以发挥作用，帮助创建一些可能需要的地下住宅空间。是的。回到地球上，看起来无聊公司和特斯拉之间的合作可以向城市提供一个难以置信的交易，即我们将创建一个由机器人出租车在3D隧道网络中行驶，为任何人提供快速低成本的交通。
You know, full-self driving may or may not be done this year. And then some cities, like someone like Mumbai, I suspect won't be done for a decade. Of course, we're more challenging than others. But today, with what you've got, you could put a 3D network of tunnels under there. Oh, if we're just in a tunnel, that's a sole problem, basically. Exactly. Full-self driving is a sole problem. So to me, there's amazing synergy there.
你知道的，完全自动驾驶可能今年完成，也可能不会完成。而一些城市，比如孟买，我怀疑要等十年才能实现。当然，我们的挑战比其他城市更多。但是现在，你可以在那里建立一个三维隧道网络，只要我们处于隧道中，那基本上就解决了这个问题。完全自动驾驶就是一个独立的问题。所以对我来说，这里有一种惊人的协同效应。
With Starship, you know, Gwynne Chottwell talked about by 2028, having, from city to city, you know, transport on planet Earth. Yeah, this is a real possibility. The fastest way to get from one place to another, if it's a long distance, is a rocket. It's basically ICBM with a landing to lead to new. Because it's an ICBM, it has to land probably offshore. Yes, it's a bit loud. So why not have a tunnel that then connects to the city with Tesla? Sure. And Neuralink, if you're going to go to Mars, having a telepathic connection with loved ones back home, even if there's a time delay. I mean, these are not intended to be connected, by the way. But there certainly could be some synergies, yeah.
在星际飞船上，你知道的，格温·贝克威尔谈到了到2028年，在地球上从城市到城市进行运输的可能性。是的，这是一个真正的可能性。如果是长距离的话，从一个地方到另一个地方最快的方式就是火箭。它基本上是带有降落设施的洲际弹道导弹。因为它是洲际导弹，所以它可能必须降落在离岸的地方。是的，它有点吵。那为什么不建一个隧道，然后与特斯拉相连接呢？当然可以。而且神经链接，如果你要去火星，与家人朋友建立起精神感应的联系，即使有时间延迟也可以。我的意思是，顺便说一下，这些并不是有意连接的。但肯定可以产生一些协同效应，是的。
Surely there is a growing argument that you should actually put all these things together into one company and just have a company devoted to creating a future that's exciting. And let a thousand flowers bloom. Have you been thinking about that? I mean, it is tricky because Tesla is a publicly traded company and the investor base of Tesla and SpaceX and certainly a boring company and Neuralink are quite different. And more and more and more and more like our tiny companies. Right. Like a person. The audience made me, yeah. Tesla's got 110,000 people. SpaceX, I think, is about 12,000 people. Boring company and Neuralink are both under 200 people. So they're little tiny companies. But they will probably get bigger in the future. They will get bigger in the future. It's not that easy to sort of combine these things.
毫无疑问，越来越多的人认为，你应该将所有这些事情合并到一个公司中，专注于创造一个令人兴奋的未来。让千花齐放。你考虑过这个吗？我的意思是，这有些棘手，因为特斯拉是一家上市公司，特斯拉、SpaceX、无聊公司和Neuralink的投资者群体完全不同。而且像我们这样的小公司越来越多。对，就像一个人。听众让我觉得如此，是的。特斯拉有11万人，我认为SpaceX有大约1.2万人，无聊公司和Neuralink都是不到200人的小公司。但它们在未来可能会变得更大。它们将会变得更大。要将这些事情合并起来并不容易。
Traditionally, you've said that for SpaceX especially, you wouldn't want it public because public investors wouldn't support the craziness of the idea of going to Mars or whatever. Making life multi-planetary is outside of the normal time horizon of Wall Street analysts. Right. To say the least. I think something's changed though. What's changed is that Tesla is now so powerful and so big and throws off so much cash that you actually could connect the dots here. Just tell the public that X billion dollars a year, whatever your number is, will be diverted to the Mars mission. I suspect you'd have massive interest in that company and it might unlock a lot more possibility for you now.
传统上，你曾经说过，特别是对于SpaceX来说，你不希望它公开上市，因为公共投资者可能无法支持去火星或其他地方的疯狂想法。让人类成为多星球物种超出了华尔街分析师的常规时间预期。没错，至少可以这么说。不过我觉得情况变了。变化的是，特斯拉现在变得如此强大、如此庞大，并带来了如此多的现金流，以至于你现在可以连接这些点了。只要告诉公众每年X亿美元（或者是你的数额）将被用于火星任务，我猜你的公司会引起巨大的兴趣，这可能会为你开启更多可能性。
I mean, I would like to give the public access to ownership of SpaceX. But I mean, the overhead associated with public company is high. So, I mean, as a public company, you're just constantly sued. It does occupy like a fair bit of time and effort to deal with these things. Right. But you would still only have one public company. It would be bigger and have more things going on. But instead of being on four boards, you'd be on one. I'm actually not even on the Neuralink or Warren company boards. Oh, well. And I don't really attend the SpaceX board meetings. We only have two a year and I just stopped buying chat for an hour. So, the board of the head for a public company is much higher. Right. I think some investors probably worry about how your time is being split and they might be excited by that.
我的意思是，我希望让公众有机会拥有SpaceX的股权。但是，我是说，与上市公司相关的开销很高。所以，我是说，作为一家上市公司，你就会不断受到诉讼。处理这些事情确实需要相当多的时间和精力。对的。但是你仍然只有一家上市公司。它会更大，并有更多的事情要处理。但与其参与四个董事会，你只需参与一个董事会。实际上，我甚至没有参加Neuralink或Warren公司的董事会会议。哦，好吧。而且我并不经常参加SpaceX的董事会会议。我们每年只有两次，并且我只会占用一个小时的时间。所以，作为一家上市公司的董事会的工作量更大。对的。我认为一些投资者可能担心你的时间如何被分配，他们可能会对此感到兴奋。
Anyway, I just woke up the other day thinking, there are so many ways in which these things connect. And just the simplicity of that mission of building a future that is worth getting excited about might appeal to an awful lot of people.
无论如何，前几天我醒来时想到，这些事情有很多联系之处。只是简单地建设一个令人兴奋的值得期待的未来的使命可能对很多人具有吸引力。
Elon, you are reported by Forbes and everyone else as now, in other words, richest person. That's not a sovereign. You know, I think it's fair to say that if somebody is like the king or the factor king of a country, they're wealthier than I am. But it's just harder to measure. But what people do, so $300 billion, I mean, your net worth on any given day is rising or falling by several billion dollars. How insane is that?
埃隆，福布斯和其他所有人都把你称为现在最富有的人。这并不代表统治者的身份。你知道，我认为公平的说，如果有人是一个国家的国王或者事实上的国王，他们比我更富有。只是难度更大来进行衡量。但是人们会这样做，所以3000亿美元，我的意思是，你的净值每天都在上升或下降几十亿美元。这是多么离谱啊？
Yeah. I mean, how do you handle that psychologically? There aren't many people in the world who have to even think about that. I actually don't think about that too much. The thing that is actually more difficult and that does make sleeping difficult is that every good hour or even minute of thinking about Tesla and SpaceX has such a big effect on the company that I really try to work as much as possible to the edge of sanity, basically. Because Tesla is getting to the point where, probably we'll get to the point later this year, where every high quality minute of thinking is a million dollars to impact on Tesla. So, which is insane.
是的。我的意思是，你在心理上如何处理这个问题？世界上没有多少人需要考虑这个问题。实际上，我不会想得太多。实际上更困难的是，它会让我难以入睡的是，每一个对特斯拉和SpaceX的良好思考的小时甚至分钟都对公司产生巨大的影响，因此我真的尽量尽可能多地工作，几乎到了极限。因为特斯拉已经达到了一个点，可能今年晚些时候我们将达到这个点，每一分钟的高质量思考都会给特斯拉带来一百万美元的影响。这简直是疯狂。
So, I mean, the basic, you know, if Tesla is doing, you know, of sort of $2 billion a week, let's say in revenue, it's sort of $300 million a day, seven days a week. You know, it's. If you can change that by 5% in an hour's brainstorm, that doesn't be valuable. That's a pretty valuable hour. But there are many instances where a half hour meeting with. I was able to improve the financial outcome of the company by $100 million in a half hour meeting.
所以，我的意思是，基本上，你知道的，如果特斯拉每周的收入约为20亿美元，那就是每天约3000万美元，一周七天。你知道，如果你可以在一个小时的头脑风暴中将这个数字改变5%，那将是非常有价值的一个小时。但是有很多例子，一个半小时的会议我就能在半小时的会议中提高公司的财务收入1亿美元。
There are many other people out there who can't stand this world of billionaires. Like, they are hugely offended by the notion that an individual can have the same wealth as say a billion or more of the world's poorest people. If they examine sort of the. I think there are some axiomatic flaws that are leading to that conclusion. For sure, it would be very problematic if I was consuming, you know, billions of dollars a year in personal consumption. But that is not the case. In fact, I don't even own a home right now. I'm literally staying at friends' places. If I travel to the Bay Area, which is where most of Tesla engineering is, I stay in my. I basically rotate through friends' spare bedrooms. I don't have a yacht. I really don't take vacations. So it's not as though that my personal consumption is high. I mean, the one exception is a plane, but if I don't use the plane, then I have less hours to work.
有很多人对亿万富翁的世界感到无法忍受。他们对一个人可以拥有与世界上最贫困的几十亿人相同的财富这一观念感到非常愤慨。如果他们仔细研究，我认为会发现一些基本的缺陷导致了这个结论。当然，如果我每年个人消费数十亿美元，那肯定会带来很多问题。但实际上并不是这样的。事实上，我现在连自己的住房都没有。我真的是住在朋友的家里。如果我去湾区，也就是特斯拉工程的大部分所在地，我会住在我的朋友的备用卧室里。我没有游艇，我真的不度假。所以，并不是我的个人消费很高。唯一的例外是私人飞机，但如果我不使用飞机，那我就有更少的时间去工作。
So. I personally think you have shown that you are mostly driven by really quite a deep sense of moral purpose. You've tried your attempts to solve the climate problem have been as powerful as anyone else on the planet that I'm aware of. And I actually can't understand. Personally, I can't understand the fact that you get all this criticism from the left about, oh my God, you're so rich. Let's disgusting. When climate is their issue, philanthropy is a topic that some people go to. Philanthropy is a hard topic. How do you think about that? I think if you care about the reality of goodness instead of the perception of philanthropy, philanthropy is extremely difficult. SpaceX, Tesla, Neural Electric Boring Company are philanthropy. If you say philanthropy is love of humanity, they are philanthropy. Tesla is accelerating sustainable energy. This is a love of full enthalpy. SpaceX is trying to ensure the long term survival of humanity with multi-part species. This is love of humanity. Neuralink is to help solve brain injuries and existential risk with AI, love of humanity. Boring Company is trying to solve traffic, which is health for most people. And also it is like humanity. Right.
那么，就我个人而言，我认为你表现出你主要受到深深的道德动机驱使。就我所了解，你在解决气候问题的努力与地球上其他任何人一样强大。而我实际上无法理解的是，你会受到左翼议论的批评，说"哦天哪，你太有钱了，真令人恶心"。当气候是他们所关注的问题时，慈善是一些人会去谈论的话题。慈善是一个艰难的话题。你如何看待这个问题呢？我认为，如果你关心善良的现实而非慈善的形象，慈善是非常困难的。SpaceX、特斯拉、神经电力公司都是慈善。如果你说慈善是对人类的热爱，那它们就是慈善。特斯拉正在加速可持续能源的发展，这是对人类的热爱。SpaceX致力于确保多种族的人类生存长久，这是对人类的热爱。神经链接是为了帮助解决脑部损伤和人工智能带来的存在风险，这是对人类的热爱。无聊公司正试图解决交通问题，这对大多数人来说是有益的，也是对人类的贡献。
How upsetting is it to you to hear this constant drumbeat of billionaires, my God, Elon Musk, my God? Like, is it. Do you just shrug that off or does it actually hurt? I mean, at this point, it's water if it ducks back.
听到这种不断提及亿万富翁的言论有多让你沮丧呢？天哪，象马斯克这样的人物，天哪！你是置之不理还是真的受伤了呢？我是说，现在这种情况像水 off ducks's back 了吗？
You know, I'd like to, as we wrap up now, just pull the camera back and just think you're a father now of seven surviving kids. Well, I mean, I'm trying to say a good example because the birth rate on Earth is so low that we're facing civilizational collapse unless the birth rate returns to a sustainable level. Yeah, you've talked about that deep population is a big problem. And we. Yes. People don't understand the big collapse. The big collapse is one of the biggest threats to the future of human civilization. And that is what is going on right now.
你知道的，当我们现在结束时，我想把摄像机拉远一点，想象一下你现在是七个孩子的父亲。嗯，我的意思是，我想举一个好的例子，因为地球上的出生率非常低，除非出生率恢复到可持续水平，否则我们将面临文明崩溃。是的，你提到人口过度增长是一个大问题。我们。没错。人们不理解这个大崩溃。大崩溃是对人类文明未来的最大威胁之一。而这正是现在正在发生的事情。
What drives you on a day to day basis to do what you do? I guess, like, I really want to make sure that there is a good future for humanity and that we're on a path to understanding the nature of the universe, the meaning of life, why are we here, how do we get here. And in order to understand the nature of the universe and all these fundamental questions, we must expand the scope and scale of consciousness. Certainly, it must not diminish or go out. We certainly wouldn't understand this. So I would say I'm motivated by curiosity more than anything and just desire to think about the future and not be sad.
你每天是因为什么原因而做你所做的事情呢？我猜，我真的想确保人类有一个美好的未来，并且我们正走在了解宇宙的本质、生命的意义、我们为什么在这里以及我们是如何到达这里的道路上。为了理解宇宙的本质和所有这些基本问题，我们必须扩大意识的范围和规模。当然，它不应该减少或消失。我们肯定无法理解这个问题。所以我可以说我更多地是被好奇心推动，只是想思考未来而不是伤心。
And are you not sad? I'm sometimes sad. Mostly, I'm feeling, I guess, relatively optimistic about the future these days. There are certainly some big risks that humanity faces. I think the population collapses a really big deal that I wish more people would think about because the birth rate is far below as the future. So we're just needed to sustain civilization at its current level. And, yeah, there's obviously, we need to take action on climate sustainability, which is being done. And we need to secure the future of consciousness by being a multi-panna species. We need to address the, essentially, it's important to take whatever actions we can think of to address the existential risks that affect the future of consciousness.
你不是也难过吗？我有时候会感到悲伤。总的来说，现在我对未来感到相对乐观。人类确实面临一些重大的风险。我认为人口崩溃是个非常严重的问题，我希望更多人能够认识到，因为出生率远远低于未来所需的水平。所以我们需要维持文明的当前水平。同时，我们显然需要采取行动来实现气候可持续发展，这方面已经在进行中。我们还需要通过成为多星球物种来确保意识的未来。我们需要解决存在主义风险，保护意识的未来，重要的是采取我们能想到的任何行动来解决这些风险。
There's a whole generation coming through who seem really sad about the future. What would you say to them? Well, I think if you want the future to be good, you must make it so. Take action to make it good, and it will be. Ilhan, thank you for all this time. That is a beautiful place to end. Thanks for all that you're doing. You're welcome.
现在正涌现出一整代人，他们对未来感到非常悲观。你会对他们说些什么呢？嗯，我认为如果你想让未来变得美好，你必须自己去努力。采取行动使它变好，它就会变得美好。Ilhan，谢谢你花这么多时间。这是一个美好的结尾。感谢你所做的一切。不客气。