Welcome to the Wall Street Journal's CEO COUNCEL Summit. Please welcome to the stage, CEO of Dow Jones and publisher of the Wall Street Journal, Almar LeTorque. Hello. How's everybody doing? Everybody great? I know Table 2 is doing really well. Just, yeah, okay. Keep it quiet, folks. It's a good evening. And welcome to the CEO COUNCEL Summit here in London. It's great to be back.
First, I want to start by thanking the people who actually made it all possible tonight. And there's many of you also in the audience. That's Philip Morris, international, or sponsors. Simon Kutcher, Bank Bekal, Bank Polski, GPW, Orlan, Polish Investment and Trade Agency, and Genic, Gazeta Provena. So thank you all for your strong support and for making tonight possible. We're really grateful for your partnership.
Now, in a few minutes, I'm going to turn it over to a face very familiar to you and that is Thorl Barker. He's the Wall Street Journal Editor for Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. And it has been doing an amazing job bringing all of you together and conducting wonderful conversations. And one of the conversations he's going to have is with a little known entrepreneur. We don't know if he's going to make it or not. But that's Elon, who is on the line already waiting. And so, beyond Elon, the last time that we were here, we talked about a lot of significant issues.
An increasing complexity, an increasing tension, an aggressive change all around the world. And since that time, I think things have only gotten. More intense will hit all those topics while we are here. The war in Ukraine continues with no apparent end in sight. The U.S.-China relations, always difficult, perhaps at a more difficult point than ever before. We've experienced since last time we met here, bank crisis on both sides of the Atlantic. And then, of course, the generative AI is, I don't know about you during reception. It was probably every conversation was probably set up by generative AI, because that was, it seemed to be the only topic. So, we will dig into that very deeply.
Now, we have great journalists and great guests. But, upper poll of journalists, I know that so many of you in the audience are aware of very specific situation for the Wall Street Journal. That is our colleague, Evan Gershkovic, who was arrested, wrongfully arrested, two months ago, roughly. In Russia, he's been in detention ever since. And there was a small update, well, not so small, significant update on that today, just this afternoon, where his pretrial detention has been extended by three months.
I know you agree with this, that his arrest is an outrage, that his arrest is an assault on free press, and ultimately an assault on free society. And I thank you also on behalf of the entirety of Dow Jones, the Wall Street Journal, and editor-in-chief, Emma Tucker, for your tremendous support throughout. So, thanks for that.
So, with that, one final message, that the action is on stage, but it's also off stage. I personally make great use of the interactions that I have with all of you. I know you are doing the same. I learned already a dangerous number of things tonight here at Table 2. And so, I wish you a wonderful evening, and here is Thorol Bacher. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Alma, and welcome everybody. This is actually the sixth year that we have done the CO Council here in London, sadly, a few of those were virtual during the pandemic, but it's fabulous to have so many of you here tonight, and so many familiar faces. So, thank you very much for coming.
We have a fabulous lineup for you over the next 24 hours, and we're going to be covering a lot of the themes that Alma talked about. But we're going to start with someone who sits at the centre of so many of these. So, please welcome virtually, Elon Musk. Thank you very much. Thank you very much.
Elon, welcome. Hi. You in Palo Alto, I understand. I'm at Global Engineering headquarters in Palo Alto. Thank you so much for joining us.
埃隆,欢迎。嗨。我了解你在帕洛阿尔托。我在帕洛阿尔托的全球工程总部。非常感谢你的加入。
I'm actually going to start somewhere a little bit differently than I expected, because I just saw on Twitter a little announcement, and would love to get your thoughts on it. I see you're infusing Ronda Sanses tomorrow morning. Is that right? On Twitter Spaces?
Yes, I think. I need to look at the exact time, but tomorrow morning, your time, I think, it would be correct. So, yes, we'll be interviewing Ronda Sanses, and he has quite an announcement to make. And we'll be, with the first sign, that's something that this is happening on social media. And with real-time questions and answers, not scripted.
So, it's going to be live and let that's letter up. Let's see what happens. And you've been tweeting some Tim Scott stuff in the last few days. What should we be thinking about who you're backing? Obviously, this interview tells us something. Can you give us a sense of where you're thinking is at the moment?
Yes, I mean, I'm not at this time planning to endorse any particular candidates. But I am interested in, you know, X-Lush Twitter being somewhat of a public town square, and where more and more organizations host content and make announcements on Twitter. It's the only place on the internet to really get real-time, like, down to the minute and second news.
And it's, yeah, so I think it's quite groundbreaking that there would be a major announcement of this type on social media.
这是一个惊人的消息,我认为社交媒体上有这样一个重要的公告是非常有开创性的。
And should we expect, sorry, I don't want to go on too long about this, but in your new role as interviewer, rather than into UE, should we expect more of this? I mean, if it's the town square, are you going to be interviewing other candidates, Democrats? What's your thought of this? Are people willing to come? Are you going to be there to execute the town square across the spectrum?
Yes, absolutely. So just as I promised when I do a series of media interviews, I did a range of interviews. And I guess this would be also a media interview. So ranging from sort of on the left, moderate to what's considered right. And I do think it's important that Twitter be, have both the reality and the perception of a level playing field of a place where voices are heard, and where there's the kind of dynamic interaction that is you don't really see anywhere else.
I mean, today on Twitter, for example, AOC got into an argument on Twitter, which was, in the independent of which side do you agree with? It's not very entertaining. So what, and I'm sure tomorrow will be entertaining, we're all going to be tuned into that. But when you approach an interview like that, and obviously a really important election like the one that is coming up, can you just talk a little bit about what are the key issues that really matter for you at this pivotal moment?
It's not a for you as an individual in terms of who leads the country, but also more broadly than that for the country and for your businesses. Can you give your sense of where the real issues lie here?
这不仅关乎你个人对国家领导人的选择,而且更广泛地影响到国家和你的企业。你觉得真正的问题在哪里?
Well, I've said publicly that my preference, and I think the preference of most Americans, is really to have someone fairly normal in office. I think it'll be quite happy with that, actually. You know, I think someone that is representative of the moderate views that I think most the country holds in reality. But the way things are set up is that we do have a system that seems to push things towards the edges because of the primaries.
So in order to win the primary, you've got to win, obviously, majority of your party's vote. In both cases, that tends to cause a swing to the left and the right. Although I think things are more complex than simply left and right during the primaries, and then a shift towards the center for the general election. As far as what I think is.
Yeah, so I'd really just like someone who's fairly normal and sensible to be the president, that would be great. So if we go through the four names in the frame at the moment, can you just give us sort of yes, no, and whether they're normal and sensible? So we've got Joe Biden.
I think I got you. You know, be careful about these statements. So we'd maybe have to have a few drinks before I would give you the answers to all of them. I will look forward to that, and I look forward to the conversation tomorrow, and obviously a lot more of those to come over the coming months.
So that's great. Thank you very much. So what I wanted to start with, you've just flown in, I think, in the last 20 minutes. You live a pretty hectic lifestyle. But you've said that the only true currency is time. Can you give a sense to the people in this room who are scheduled within an inch of their lives, sort of how you.
What is the day in the life of Elon Musk? What does that look like?
埃隆·马斯克的一天是什么样子?他的生活是什么样子?
That is very long and complicated, as you might imagine. There's great deal of context switching. There's a meme I like called like, relating to doom, where it's like, fear is not the mind killer context switching is. So switching context is quite painful.
I do generally try to divide a company that's predominantly one company on one day. So today is a Tesla day, for example. Although I might end up at Twitter late tonight, and then tomorrow would be partly a Tesla day as well, but just to have Twitter. And then at those days would be sort of a half space, six half Tesla day. But these things are so intertwined. So the time management is extremely difficult.
And this is going to sound pretty strange, but I only have one part time assistant. How many days a week is that the part time? I suppose it was the out of show works, it would technically be full time, but it's not. I do most of the scheduling myself. The reason I do that is because it's impossible for someone else to know what the priorities are. So the, and since the most valuable thing I have is time I schedule it myself for the most part.
So if you come into Tesla today, do you have a series of meetings set up, or do you come in with something on your mind and you go and see people? What structure is this? Or if you shop at Twitter? In terms of the people working for you, how do they handle that?
So today I have several hours of scheduled meetings at Twitter. So there are a number of things that are prepared in a weekly cadence. And so those meetings are already set up. And then I have some mental meetings at the end of the day. I won't be going to sleep until probably 2 a.m. or something like that. I'm working almost the entire time.
And if you're scheduling this yourself, is AI going to be helpful over the next few years to help you do this? Are you going to be using technology to help you manage that? I guess we'll all be using technology. I use a lot of AI myself day to day. I mean, Tesla AI is actually very advanced for real world AI. It's the most advanced real world AI by far. And if positions were swapped and it was say, I have to Microsoft and OpenAI to create the best large language model.
If it's tasks were swapped, Tesla was given the task of making the most competitive large language model. And Microsoft OpenAI were tasked with self-driving. Tesla would win. I don't think we understand the degree of the capability of Tesla's AI system. So while I don't use AI a lot, Tesla uses a trans-mount. We'll get on to that in a second if that's OK.
But one final thing in terms of just the management of what you do with your life, you're running three very big companies. You have very big stakes and ownership control of two of those at least. What is your succession plan if you suddenly can't execute what you're doing? Both in terms of who runs the companies, but as importantly, who votes those shares in terms of what happens longer term and strategically. Have you got a plan for all of those?
Yeah, succession is one of the toughest age-old problems. It's plagued countries, kings, prime ministers and presidents for NCOs for, you know, since the dawn of history. There is no obvious solution. I mean, there are particularly individuals identified as that I've told board, look, if something happens to me unexpectedly, this is who my, this is my recommendation for taking over. So in all cases, the board is aware of who my recommendation is, which they may choose to, it's up to them, or they may choose to go to the direction, but I think there is a, in the worst case scenario, this is who should run the company.
The control question is a much more, there's a much tougher question. And something that I'm resting with and I'm practically open to ideas because it's certainly is true that the companies that I have created and are creating collectively possess immense capability. And so the stewardship of them is incredibly important. I want to make sure that the stewardship is ultimately accrues the benefit of humanity. That's the idea is the furtherance of civilization. But that they were always successful in that, but that is aspirationally our goal.
So I have one idea which is sort of partly in place, which is create kind of an educational institution that that would control most of my vote. But this is not a case of automatically, I'm definitely not not at the school of automatically giving my kids some share of the companies, even if they have no interest or inclination or ability to manage the company. So it's a very hard problem to solve. And then who should be on the board of directors of the educational institution is also a very, very hard job to solve. So I think probably some disaggregation of control would make sense.
I'm really just kind of thinking out loud creatively here. And it's something that you need to get planning of who those people are going to be, because as you've said, when you look at space, actually look at Tesla, you look at Twitter, these matter to society a lot. And having the right people to take those votes on the future of where they go and where money gets spent is very important. Yes, absolutely.
Now the goals of the companies that are that's even of those goals varies considerably in difficulty. The original goal of Tesla was to accelerate the advent of sustainable energy, which actually I think we've done that to a significant degree. And actually it's kind of it's kind of an order industry CEOs to often acknowledge Tesla's role in accelerating electric vehicles. So that I feel has a lot of momentum. This is still solving self-driving, which we're, you know, aspirationally helping to do this year.
And so Tesla got a long way to go, but the execution plan is relatively clear. And that execution plan will generate a lot of positive cashflow for the company. So it's like a fairly obvious thing to do with SpaceX. It's a harder problem because the long term objective is to make like multi-planetary with the self-sustaining city on Mars, which is likely to be very cashflow negative at first. That's very much a long term. Let's just say the target market on Mars is small. You got to think long term here. You're also going to have to get on very well with those you go with. I would imagine.
Yes, definitely. You know, you know, you're sanity will be a prime requirement for stability for traveling to Mars. You don't want someone going nuts and opening the airlocking middle of the night. So, so, so, so, SpaceX is a harder problem because it's it's a much longer term goal and and with a lot more money lost along the way. So, going to make sure that that happens.
And is that the sort of thing just to stay on SpaceX and we'll go to Twitter and, Tez, in a second, but is that the sort of thing that you'd like to lock in to the goals of SpaceX that Mars remains the ultimate ambition of this. Come on, me. Is that is that that important to you? Yeah, I mean, it's it's to make life multi multi planetary such that and the key threshold for multi planetary is that if the supply ships from earth start coming for any reason that Mars does not die out. That's the that's the critical great filter.
If you put things in terms of the Fermi paradox, the great filter is Mars being self-sustaining without any reason to pledge us from Earth until we reach that point, we're really just one planet civilization with an extension. But the point which the planet self-sustaining or Mars self-sustaining, then even in a worst case scenario of Earth civilization either dying with a bang or a whip or then Mars would have a much better chance of surviving. So the intent here overall is to ensure that consciousness which appears to be just a tiny candle and a vast darkness.
I frequently I frequently get asked to have I seen any evidence of aliens and I I've not. I want to have an alien registration card when I was getting my green green card. I said alien registration. Indeed. Possibly a slightly different type of alien. But so do you think you'll will you live to see Mars happen? I hope to live to see the first humans on Mars. But I think it will take some period of time beyond that to make Mars self-sustaining. So it's at least 20 years from the first visit to make Mars sustaining because my guess and it may be 40 or 50. And that's assuming you really go for it. That's a tough one.
But I like to think it's important for improving the survivability of civilization. And who's going to pay for that? I mean are your investors going to put the money up to do that? Are you going to expect government to fund that? Where does that money come from? Because as you say you can make a return on styling. You can make a return on launching satellites for other people and space tourism. But that's a that's a tougher return isn't it?
I think long term the value of it will be incredibly high. It's just beyond the planning horizon of most people or most investors. So I mean obviously if there's a thriving city on Mars and there's a lot of interplanetary commerce and space exists as the primary provider of that it would be immensely valuable. So the one thing is that there be this self-sustaining that you know colony. And I think we I think we generally operate with much more assumption that civilization is robust and nothing could really take it down. So a sentiment that has been common throughout history among empires shortly before they come.
So you know I have to say that you know there's a little bit of late stage empire vibes going on right now. Yeah yeah that is for sure. Are you. Is AI something that in your view accelerates the risk of that or increases the risk of that outcome?
Yeah. We could definitely make a city or most of self-sustaining without without AI or without sort of a AI which is generally artificial general intelligence or super intelligence. I think that that is a it's not necessary for anything we're doing but it is happening and happening very quickly. So there is a risk that advanced AI either eliminates all constraints humanities growth. I was more thinking the opposite does it increase the chance that plant the planet self input implodes and those things come true. I mean how concerned are you about these developments right now sort of accelerating your your bad case scenario.
Well I mean the development of artificial digital sort of super intelligence is very much a double edge sword so it's if you have a genie that can grant you anything that can also do anything. That necessarily is presented danger and I expect the first uses of AI to be. Certainly first common uses of AI to be weapon technology so just having more advanced weapons on the battle that can react faster than any human could. That's really what AI will capable of. I mean future wars between advanced countries or at least countries that have significant drone capability will be very much the drone wars. So I want to get back to AI because this is this is big stuff and I'd like to talk about it more detail but I do want to come just come back to the present from a long way in the future.
You just hired a new CEO Linda Linda Jacarino and add veteran into Twitter you usually focus on hiring engineers you know Linda is a very different person can you just quickly tell us about your courtship how did that go down. Well we had conversations over a number of months just relating to advertising and then Linda felt that it was very helpful for the advertisers to see me and person so invite me down to a conference in Miami which was very helpful and met with number of advertisers personally to show their you know that that Twitter is a good place to advertise. In general that in fact that that haste features declined which it has and that the quality of the system with respect to scams and spam is dramatically better than it used to be.
刚刚您雇了一位新的CEO Linda Jacarino,并把一个老将加入到Twitter团队中。通常而言,您更加关注的是招聘工程师,那么Linda又是一位和他们截然不同的人。请问您能简单地告诉我们一下你们的邂逅过程吗?嗯,在过去的几个月里,我们一直在谈论广告问题。后来Linda认为让广告主亲眼看见我会有很大的帮助,就邀请我去了一次迈阿密的会议,我也很开心地和许多广告主面对面交流,让他们知道Twitter是一个很好的广告投放平台。总的来说,我们也介绍了Twitter的一些新特性,它的使用质量和反作弊功能也得到了极大的提升。
We've gotten rid of at this point well of a 90% of the scams and scams the scams in spam on Twitter so it should be quite rare at this point that you see a scam. So we've also rolled out sort of just to be clear when you say you've got it at 90% of the scams is that the same thing as the bots or is this scams in general and bots is a different animal here. No no typically use bots for scam. But you haven't taken the bots down 90% now I think we have actually. Maybe more than 90% at least is now much much harder to operate a bot bomb on Twitter and haven't yield any any advantage. So dramatic improvement in bots dramatic improvement inability to detect sort of troll armies which is a little different that's where you've got say you know 100 people in warehouse in a low wage country each of which are sitting at a desk with a hundred phones so you've got 10,000 actual people and they will then act together to brigade a particular subject or make something seem very popular when it is not. And we've been able to defeat almost all of them we think very few of them are actually still able to operate.
So all of the system has gotten a lot better. So if you said to Linda that you are going to keep speaking your mind whatever the commercial impact of that and is she agreed to that is she happy with that you aligned. OK and in her role as CEO does she have any say over moderation or is that under you or you do that together. Well the general principle is that we will we will heal close to the law so for any given country we will try to adhere as close to the law as possible. Our law is very between countries and we can't simply thought the law in in another country because they will simply cut us off. So with the general principle is do it if we can to enable free and open communications with between people provided they're not like said breaking.
So we have a line on that plan. There is an important thing which is like that that obviously doesn't mean that say advertisers should be forced to appear next to any content. So we've also developed a JZC controls that ensure that if where you're advertising is like Disney for example is a big advertising. A children movie they want the contents nearby to be sort of family friendly that's totally understandable. So it's not like advertisers have to appear next to content that they don't agree with. So some people say you can't be a little erratic with your tweeting or least tweet a broad range of content.
Paragraph 1:
Does anybody say I don't want to be adjacent to Elon Musk? Is that something that's happened on the platform? I've never heard that yet. Did that come up with Linda at all? Sort of what you tweet and whether that was something that could affect advertisers? Did she ask you about that?
Paragraph 2:
I should have in fact at the conference that we do with Miami and then we speech as paramount. I wanted to ask you a little bit about your vision for Twitter as a community and as a conversation. You've talked about your desire to maximize unregretted time. Can you explain what that means and how you measure that?
Paragraph 3:
So previously Twitter was mostly focused on this number called M-Dowl monetizable daily active users. So I wanted to see a notification on their phone about a tweet but they wouldn't actually click through the site. So what really matters is true user seconds of screen time. So that's the figure we track right now. And that's based on the screen time as reported to us by iOS and Android and the browser. So it would have to the amount of time the app is in the foreground. Right. Which is the most rigorous way to assess this.
Paragraph 4:
So when you say unregretted, sorry, please, could go. Exactly. So in terms of undergraded, it's that that's a little harder to measure. But we can certainly gather it anecdotally, which is to say that if you spent, you know, half an hour and 20 yesterday, you'd have to say that you're not going to be able to measure that time. So that's the most accurate way to measure that time to your regret. And journaling feedback of button has been very positive. That they find it's information useful, entertaining, funny. So we seem to be heading the right direction as far as I can tell. I'm certainly open to any critiques from the room.
Paragraph 5:
Let me ask you one on that, which is, you know, you recently tweeted about George Soros. Let me just get the words because I'm kind of interested in what you think about this. He wants to erode the very fabric of civilization, Soros hates humanity. That obviously generated a huge amount of response on Twitter on both sides. Lots of different viewpoints. Is that unregrettable time, unregretted time? That debate that you created, does that fit into that category, do you think?
Paragraph 6:
Well, I mean, I said like Soros reminds me of Magneto, you know. Well, you then went a little further than that. But again, without going into the Soros tweet itself, you know, you're obviously a big figure on Twitter and you're setting a tone and an aim. So I'm just curious as to whether that sort of debate, which gets triggered, does that fit into the definition that you're trying to create in that new town square?
Paragraph 7:
Well, I mean, the important thing is that like, look, what I say is not, is what I say. You know, it's sort of a town square. I'm not going to mitigate what I say because that would be inhibiting freedom of speech. That doesn't mean you have to agree with what I say. In order to mean if somebody says the total opposite that there would be supported on Twitter, they are. The point is to have a diversion set of views. And free speech is only relevant if it's speech by, if speech by someone you don't like, it says something you don't like. Is that allowed? If so, you have free speech, otherwise you do not. And for those who would advocate censorship, I would say it is, if you succeed in that, it's only a matter of time before the censorship gets to an end on you.
Paragraph 8:
I agree. I mean, that's your free speech definition, which you said. But I'm just curious as to the, on the unregrettable part, what type of conversation you're trying to achieve and whether that's something that is acceptable but maybe not where you want the broader conversation to go.
Paragraph 9:
Well, I'm an energy firefight that, you know, some of my concerns about source are that he's funded a very large number of small but influential races around the country, especially with theistic district attorneys. You know, we founded the, for example, the LA and San Francisco district attorney races with the Chess Bodine and the guy who I always wanted to call him Gaston from the beauty of the beast, but I didn't use Gaston. And the, basically, he's, he's, he's, of course, a large number of D.A.s. to be elected who are very easy on crime and will often fuse refusal to prosecute. So you're basically trying to make a deeper point with that short?
Paragraph 10:
Yes. Can I just move on quickly to, because I don't want to go too far down that, that rabbit hole, because that debate has played out on Twitter a bit, is, you know, are you back near profitability now? Twitter is not quite there, but we, we're not like, you know, when I, when I first, when I actually, I'm just going to close, I'd say it, it's an allegace to being teleported into a plane that's plunging to the ground with its engines on fire and the controls don't work. So it's comforting to say the least.
Now, we have to do some pretty heavy handed, plus cutting it, not many healthy, but we're at this point we're training towards if we get lucky, we might be casual, casual, casual positive next month, but it remains to be seen. And is the staffing the level you now want it, or are you going to start taking it back up again from this? It's gone from, I think, 8,000 to about 1,500 or something like that. That's the correct, yeah. I think there's, you know, there's definitely, we're all going to start adding people to the company, and we have started adding some number of people to the company. But it's still a lot of change to happen, so, but I think 1,500 is probably a reasonable number.
And does this show what you can do in a big tech company in terms of cost reduction? I mean, when you look around other big tech companies in Silicon Valley, would you say from your experience that there's room for much more significant change at those as well? Yeah, I think Twitter may be somewhat of an outlier in that there were a lot of people doing things that didn't seem to have a lot of value. And that's, I think that's true probably most Silicon Valley companies, maybe not to the degree to which it was a Twitter, but it's still, yeah. And there's potential for significant cuts, I think, out of the companies without affecting their productivity, back increasing their productivity. So, you know, in any given company, there are people who help move things forward and people who sort of try to sign the breaks on Twitter was in a situation where you have a meeting of 10 people, you know, and one person with an accelerator nine, nine with a set of breaks. So, you didn't go very far. And so now we're going home about releasing functionality, even with a little bit of risk to site stability, so long as it's not too serious. And I think those points probably fair to say we've introduced more functionality in the last six months than Twitter has in the last six years.
And in terms of outages, there were some outages early on. Are you confident things are stable now? Well, outages are not unusual. Instagram recently had an outage, for example, which was a Twitter on Twitter. Ironically. So, we've had outages, but not massive ones, and they've generally been brief and limited in scope.
Do you regret buying it? You tried to get out of it, or you know how happy you bought it? Well, it was well that ends well. Is it ended well yet? Or we still got to wait and see? I think we're on the hopefully on the comeback arc. So, I mean, one of the things you have talked about, you bought it for $44 billion, you've talked about it one day being worth $250, I think, in internal meetings. Can you just talk about how you get there? What is the bigger vision? I mean, you want to bring back advertisers now. And are they coming back, by the way? Yeah. Yeah. Can you give any idea of the scale of the comeback in terms of who you lost and who's coming back? Well, I think it'll be very significant. So, the advertising agencies, this point of all, lifted their warnings on Twitter. So, appreciate the fact that Boobam, for example, removed their concern label over Twitter, which is a very big deal. And so, I think at this point, I expect almost all advertisers to do so. We've also done a lot more to make the advertising more relevant to users. Things that are more likely to be interested in buying. Sounds obvious, but. That's what doesn't still happen. Sounds super obvious.
I mean, just basic stuff. Like, if you do a search on Twitter previously, the search banner ad did not take the search terms into account, which is pretty insane. So, just show random ad. Where's obviously show an ad that is, you know, matches your search. Sounds worth doing. So, just quickly, what is, you've talked about the sort of single app that does messaging and does finance and other things. Yeah. I mean, can you just enlarge a little bit on sort of how you get there and why America wants that? Well, obviously it would be up to people to decide if they want it. It's like, do we make something that is useful enough that you want to use it more frequently? Great. That's our goal. So, we're not going to do anything to stop people leaving the app. We'll try to track them in the app, but it's provided enough compiling functionality that over time. People's usage of the platform grows.
So, in 10 years time, is advertising still going to be dominant on Twitter? I think advertising always play a role. At some point, it may not play the largest role, but it will play the largest role for at least a few years to come.
So, I want to do a quick, quick far round of questions. Just imagine that you're late at night, you're sitting there, tweeting a few rapid far responses to stuff. And I'm just going to ask you a few questions. If you can just give me short answers.
Which is the most exciting country to build a Tesla plant in right now? Well, we did make an announcement that Mexico would be our next location outside the US and picture sight and everything. So, there's that. And then we'll probably pick another location towards the end of this year. Is India interesting? Absolutely.
Are you still a fan of crypto? Well, I mean, I'm not advising anyone to buy crypto or bet the firm on, you know, dogecoin or any kind of bull. Okay. Don't quit my dogecoin. Might have been thinking, maybe you should have, but let me advise you that would be on it. Have some noise. Okay. It don't square as my sort of favorite cryptocurrency because it has the best humor and has dogs. I did, however, look at the price of it yesterday. It's lower than it was, I think. Well, I don't know. Maybe, you know, it's like, if anyone has saying that the most ironic explanation is the most likely.
And the most ironic outcome for currency would be that the thing that was made as a joke to make fun of crypto currencies. Most ironic outcome would become that it becomes the global currency. Okay. We'll wait and see.
Final one. Can you rank the US and China on their development of AI each out of 10? I mean, the US very much has the most advanced AI. So this is, you see, like, China is close behind, certainly, and has the resources to scale and to optimize. The biggest single advances in AI still come from the US and Europe. But, um, all right. So it's hard to give an exact number of score. It's more like, but there's a big gap still. There is a gap. That gap looks like it's on the order of 12 months. Right. Fish. Right.
A narrowing or expanding? It's hard to tell. I suspect it will narrow to some degree.
是缩小还是扩张?很难说。我认为它会在一定程度上变窄。
Can you talk a little bit about you've created a new AI company yourself. Obviously, there's a huge amount of energy and activity in this space. Or at least it's been talked about. I mean, what do you want to do yourself in this space beyond Tesla and the stuff you talked about earlier? What is that new thing?
Well, I think there should be a significant third horse in the race here. You've got Open AI and Microsoft, Google DeepMind, and probably there should be a third horse in the race. So, or in that soon. But is it something that will interact with the data of Twitter and the capability of Tesla? Is it something that tries to bring what you've talked about earlier in terms of capability together and become that third player? Is that what you're talking about? It's a summary, I don't want to jump the gun here on announcements. But the opening AI has a relationship with Microsoft that seems to work fairly well. So it's possible that XAI and Twitter and Tesla would have something similar. It's possible.
You talked about the importance of regulation, and you call for this moratorium. I mean, the history of regulating tech has been checkered. It's been very hard for regulators to keep up with tech, let alone get ahead of it. What do you think actually needs to happen that practically could in this space to try to change that? Because obviously the history of this is not encouraging.
I mean, I think there should be, you know, I've been pushing hard for a long time. I met with a number of senior senators and Congress, people in Congress and the White House, to advocate for AI regulation. Starting with an inside committee that is formed of independent parties as well as perhaps participants from the leaders in industry. And that oversight committee gains, or should say, get that inside committee gains insight into what various companies are up to.
And to the degree that there's competitive dynamics there, you can obviously, you would request a board members who are perhaps have conflicts. But anyway, you figure out some sort of regulatory board and they start off getting insight and then have proposed rulemaking. And then that, you know, we'll get comments that are on by industry.
And then hopefully we have some sort of oversight rules that improve safety just as we do with craft with the FAA and spacecraft. And cars with that and food and drugs with the food drug administration. Right. And how would that work in such a global thing as we're talking about where AI and the relative advance between countries is going to be very, very important? Is that something that is globalizable?
Is that? Well, really the key question is, we'll try to, you know, cooperate with the West. That remains to be seen. But I would still advocate like some degree of oversight. I mean, we have regulatory oversight of aircraft, for example, and yet the US is still very much doing great on the aircraft. And there's been any any of those. So just because you have, you know, FAA regulation doesn't mean that it's necessarily slowed down very much.
So you have to be that the AI changes today, lock in the tech giants, the Microsofts and the Googles of this world. Does it also, is there also a scenario where it actually helps to bring in new players and change that dynamic or is that a much more unlikely outcome? Well, there are a lot of AI startups. The thing that's becoming tricky is that in order of you really need three things to compete. You need talent talented people. You need a lot of compute expensive compute and you need access to data. So whoever's got, whoever's succeeding on those three will win.
So now that the cost of computers got an astronomical. So it's now, you know, sort of minimum anti, I would say minimum would be 250 million dollars of silver hardware minimum. That's like just to relevant anyway. So the startups are more likely to piggyback off what the others are doing rather than compete directly themselves is what you're saying. Yeah, to train a big model. I mean, to train a model that I'll probably GVT five size.
I wouldn't respite if they use at least 30,000, maybe 50,000 each 100, which are the latest GPUs, it's not quite the right word, but the latest technology from Nvidia. So, and then you need to run inference as well. So it's a lot of the GPUs are. This point is considerably harder to get than drugs. Actually, that's not really not a high bar in services go. You can tell us more about that later, but yeah, it's okay.
So, a couple of things I just wanted to go into on AI, which I love your perspective on. What does it mean for society in terms of, is this going to embed wealth and power in a very small subset and create a big widening of inequality? Is it going to democratize and create the opposite? What is your sense of where this heads? Well, in terms of access to goods and services, I think AI will be ushering in the age of abundance, assuming that we're in a benign AI scenario.
I think the AI will be able to make goods and services very inexpensively. So, in anything that is a product or service, where there's not artificial scarcity created, such as like, I want to live exactly in this neighborhood houses. It's like, okay, well, there's only 100 houses there. So, you know, that that would still have scarcity or a unique artwork would have scarcity. But, anything that does not have scarcity that we deliberately designed to be scarce will be plentiful for everyone in a benign scenario.
And in the unburdened scenario? Well, there's a wide range of. But what's the thing that you're most worried about when you look at. when you've been talking for years about the need for regulation? What is the scenario that really keeps you up at night? Well, I don't think the AI is going to try to destroy all humanity, but it might put us under strict controls. And there's not a non-zero chance of it going to a manager. It's not 0%.
I think it's a small likelihood of not any humanity, but it's not 0. We wanted that probability to be as close to 0 as possible. And then, like I said, the AI assuming control for the safety of all the humans, and taking over all the computing systems and weapon systems of Earth, and effectively being like some sort of uber and Annie. But isn't another scenario. If you say that, let's say you're a most world contestant hypothetically. It's unlikely. Let's face it.
And you say, what do you want? I want world peace. And it's like, okay, well, one way to achieve world peace is to take all the weapons away from the humans so they can no longer use them. And to punish any humans that engage in extraterritorial activity. But isn't the more likely nasty outcome that rather than AI taking over and being the ultimate nanny that keeps us all doing stuff that is super safe, and it wants us to, that actually somebody nefariously harnesses that power to achieve societal control, stroke, military superiority. And that actually some country around the world decides to use it in a different way. Yes, that's what I mean by AI uses as a weapon.
And the pen is mighty than swords. So one of the first places where to be careful of AI being used is in social media to manipulate public opinion. So the reason that Twitter is going to a primarily subscriber based system is because it is dramatically harder to create. So it's like, it's like, it's like 10,000 times hotter to create an account that has a verified number from a credible carrier that has a credit card and that pays us will amount of money for month. And have those credit cards and phone numbers be highly distributed, not clustered is incredibly difficult. So whereas in the past, someone could create a million fake accounts for penny a piece and then manipulate have something appear to be very, very much liked by the public when it fact it is not or promoted and retweeted when it fact it is not. And it's not real essentially game the system.
So the bias towards a subscription based verification I think is very powerful and that really you won't be able to trust any social media company that does not do this because it will simply be overrun with watts to such an extreme degree. So I think it back to where we started, if you look at the election that's coming up, how big a role will this big shift in AI capability over the last few months which will obviously continue through the next year, how big an impact is this going to play do you think in the messaging and the way that people get told the different pitches of the candidates? I think that's something we need to go and look out for in a big way is to make sure that this we're minimizing the impact of AI manipulation. We're very, very much taking it take that seriously at Xx Twitter, you know, Xx-twitter. And I think we're putting in place all of the protections to minimize and certainly detect when we see large scale manipulation of the system. But beyond Twitter, are you worried about this for the election in general? Yeah. There probably will be attempts to use AI to manipulate the public and some will be successful. And if not this election for sure the next one.
Okay, I've got two more questions on AI. If you've got the time and then just a little bit on China and Tesla if that's okay. The first thing is we talk a lot in terms of AI about the next five to ten years and what the impact is going to be on jobs and some of these things. If you look out on a much longer timeframe given the speed and scale of the change and you look to your grandkids and great grandkids, can you just give us a sense of what is going to be like to be human? How much is this going to change the fundamental nature of how we operate as a race at this point? That's going to change a lot.
I think you go further on the future. I mean, there will be everything will be automatic. I mean, there will be household robots that you can fully talk to. And so there are people that can help you out the house, will be a companion or whatever case may be. There will be human robots throughout factories. And also also be old automatic. And anything that we're intelligent intelligence can be applied. Even modern intelligence will be automated. So they say like ten, twenty years from now. And we will be connected to that technology through a neural link type. Maybe. Is that where this in your view? Obviously.
Is that where this heads? Well, a high band with interface from cortex to the sort of computing or AI tertiary layer, which already exists. You know, it's just that we don't have a high band with connection. We're out. Limit system, which is our foundational element that sort of our instincts and desires and whatnot. They're not cortex and top of that, which is I was thinking quite about brain. And tertiary digital layer, which is currently in the phone, about phones and computers and laptops and whatnot and all the applications. The constraint on better. Better merging or. The constraints on on on. Having human interests and machine interests be aligned is the bad with especially the output. So if you select at what speed can you output to a computer to use voice or fingers, which will be very slowly. So we're talking about maybe ten bits per second or some fairly small. Data rate. So. With with the neural link, you can increase that by, you know, increase that by a million probably. So everything just speeds up. Yeah. Yeah.
I mean, this is obviously an inter-relzwie of benign scenario because there's a question of not just, let's say it's a benign scenario. How do we even appreciate or understand what the computers are doing? How do we go, how do we go along for the right? And if we have a better, if you have a brain machine interface that's, I don't know, a million times faster, then. We'll go along for the right a lot better. Then interfacing with a phone using two slow moving midsticks. If you put it like that.
And in terms of you have a lot of kids, many in this room have kids. What do they need to, what skills do they need to have? What are the three skills that you think are most important for them that you're trying to give them to be prepared and well positioned for this new world? Well, I think it's important to have a broad range of understanding in many different subjects. So I think a general knowledge is important. So you at least have some clue of what you don't know in different areas. And then go deep in areas where your child is as a strong interest in ability. So finding that overlap of where is my child interested in this and has some ability to be successful. Then you know, finding, if you can find that in diagram overlap, then obviously encouraging that is a good thing. And we are obviously headed to a high tech world. So some basic understanding of computers and software and artificial intelligence is probably a good idea.
But the actual broad thrust of, I mean, jobs will change, but it'll be more AI enabling and making it better and easier rather than wholesale complete change of the skills you need. It's a bit of a time frame talking about here. So if you say like over 20 or 30 year timeframe, I think things will be transformed beyond belief. You probably want to recognize society in 30 years. Like I do think we're fairly close. You asked me about artificial general intelligence. I think we're perhaps only three years, maybe six years away from it. This decade. So in fact, arguably we are on the event horizon of the black hole that is.
So I'm going to ask one final question. I'm going to see if you've got two minutes to take a couple of questions from the floor. And it comes back to China, which you talked about a little bit. You have a very big business in China in Tesla. And obviously, you're on that geopolitical fault line that's getting potentially interesting. To what extent is this affecting your decision making around sort of how you put assets and stuff on the ground and how concerned are you about that as a business person and a lot of people in this room have business in China. And I think it's about that getting very, very difficult for a Western business.
Well, there is fundamentally an issue that's coming to a head with Taiwan. And it's unclear when exactly Bush will come to shove, but it seems that there's a good chance Bush will come to shove. And I think that direction. I'd like to think what would that would happen. The results would be before the global company would be absolutely catastrophic. But China has been very clear about its goals on China and sort of including Taiwan as part of China. One does not need to read between the lines, one can simply read the lines. They're very clear. And they're not getting. And is the biggest concern, despite the prospect of conflict itself.
Obviously a lot of the world's high end chips come out of Taiwan. I mean, how catastrophic would that be if that was cut off? Well, even while it comes out of China.
So, China is a lot so much of the world's heavy lifting on manufacturing, especially if the manufacturing is simply hard work and not particularly glamorous. It just does an immense amount of hard work that people mostly will have an idea how much hard work they do.
So, we cut off from Taiwan, and watch less of it, considering they've been cut off from China. Now, China would reciprocally suffer, of course. So, I would say that the economies of China and Taiwan are like conjoint wins with the Western economy, with the rest of the world.
So, China and the rest of the world being conjoint wins from an economic standpoint will mean that the separation is going to be dire indeed. So, China is a very important country that happens. I hope it does not happen. And there's no easy solution here. But if there's any path to diplomatic solution, we should really take that seriously.
Great. Do you have time to take a few questions from the floor, Elon?
太好了。埃隆,你有时间回答一些现场提问吗?
Sure. Does anybody have a question they'd like to pose? We'll go here and then here.
当然。有人想提问吗?我们先从这里开始,然后再到这里。
Thanks, Elon. Thanks for joining us. I'm the founder of a real estate business in Newcastle in the northeast of England. We export, manufacture and export more cars from the northeast than the whole of Italy. Would you let me build you a Tesla factory in the northeast of England? Thanks, the author.
So, I would certainly consider England for a future location of the Gigafactory. Thank you. I'll get you this. So, you will consider it. Are you actively considering it? We're not currently looking at many locations, but we will talk towards the end of this year. I'll send you some plans, okay?
David, I hear, please. Thank you for your time. Fusion, lots of scientists say it could change the world. Planet is the sun, all life on this planet and on Mars depends on fusion, the sun itself.
Can I ask you why a man of your brilliant brain resources and talent is not actually focusing on fusion, which is a game changer for society and rather than on Twitter, where there are many media, distant companies that can do it, and I would say it's almost in a trivial way.
Well, I think we already have a giant fusion reactor in the sky that's called the sun that shows up every day. So, what you always say, if you want to know what's standing in front of a fusion reactor, feels like just go out and stand in front of the sun. You know, just walk outside. That's what a giant fusion reactor feels like, because that's what the sun is. It converts about 4.5 million tons of mass to energy every second and requires no maintenance. It's amazing.
You don't have to refuel it, you don't have to maintain it, just there. So, my recommendation for fusion is solar power and batteries. And we can easily power all of us with just with photovoltaics and batteries. Not easy, but there's just a very clear path to do so. And numerical requires just work. Interesting.
I'm also a bit of wind and of nuclear vision. Geothermal, hydro, and whatnot. We'll take a couple more.
我也是一点风能和核能的支持者。地热、水电等等,我们还可以再多使用几个。
One here and then the lady at the back. Thank you. As you're considering exposure to China, and particularly in the EV space and with the battery supply chain, what's your process for evaluating political risk in the near and midterm?
I guess I've just talked to my team. Read the news. I don't know. Assess the opinion on Twitter, I suppose. The very deep analysis in the editor from people that are at World Expo, it's on a particular subject. I don't know. I think we just we try to prepare for the worst.
Hope for the best. And make sure we have factories and geographically diversified regions of the world where the supply chain is as localized as possible. But this is important also for forced measure situations. So if there are earthquakes, wildfires, riots, revolutions, ice storms, heat waves, you name it.
I think I've seen it all this point. So you want to have you want to have a supply chain that does not inherit a forced measure from all of us. Because something that's going to happen somewhere, it's a big planet. So that's why I think it's important to have localized supply chains with factories and in many geographies.
Last question from the lady at the back. Yep. You famously tweeted that you thought the population collapse was a much bigger risk to humanity than climate change. What do you think states, families, even companies can do to ensure that more of us want to have more children?
Well, yeah, I mean, I think it's very telling if you look at the birth rates, which are just here publicly available. You can look at say the birth rate last year for every country available online. And you can look at the trend in birth rates. And it's just where the trend has been strongly downward. And that we've recently hit all time lows. So you think if you know, drink COVID, you know, what else you go to do?
You might as well have a kid. Actually, we had a big drop in birth rate during during COVID. I think we've had a big recent divorce as two. A lot of time with their significant other. So I think generally, simply changing people's mind about the goodness of having kids. It's like very important to have kids in order to continue civilization.
Sometimes it's viewed as kids of you as an imposition on the world. I don't think that's the case at all. Or that people sometimes think there are too many people in the world. That's certainly not the case. You can you can put all of the humans on earth on one floor in the city of New York. Yeah, we'd be uncomfortable, but just to you, the sense of the cross sexual area of Earth that is human is very tiny.
It just seems big if you're in a big city. But for the vast majority of the earth, if you're given a task of from a plane of dropping a bowling bowl and and you have to hit someone, you'd you'd miss almost never hit anyone. So one is that you very rarely go over a person in an aircraft. You fly from L.H. New York, the vast areas of land with no one at all.
So anyway, I think we want to just generally have it be socially encouraged to have kids. I think certainly companies need to support employees that have kids. I think in terms of government incentives, there should be some, I think, tax breaks for having kids, you know, or make it financially not burdened some to have children.
And it's always worth bearing in mind like autonomy aside, if someone doesn't have kids, what you're actually asking is that someone else's kids take care of you when you're old. And that doesn't seem like quite right, you know. Because that's what they'll be forced to do.
So I think, you know, one way or another, we need to solve this birth rate issue or civilization will go into nothing. If network AI comes in, it'll do all the jobs for us so we can handle a potentially lower population or what you're talking about. I think there will be robot nannies that are very competent, so that will help.
Thank you, Elon Musk. Thank you very much for joining us. Thank you all very much for this evening. I hope you enjoyed it. And please join us for a drink next door and hopefully there'll be plenty from that to discuss. Thank you very much.